Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T02:52:29.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of cotton herbicide programs on weed population trajectories and frequency of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2022

Fernando H. Oreja
Affiliation:
Research Scholar, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA; current: Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Production, Buenos Aires University, Buenos Aires C1417DSE, Argentina
Matthew D. Inman
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Matthew Vann
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Ramon G. Leon*
Affiliation:
Professor and University Faculty Scholar, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Center for Environmental Farming Systems, and Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Ramon G. Leon, 4402C Williams Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695. (Email: rleon@ncsu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The adoption of dicamba-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars allows using dicamba to reduce weed populations across growing seasons. However, the overuse of this tool risks selecting new herbicide-resistant biotypes. The objectives of this research were to determine the population trajectories of several weed species and track the frequency of glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) over 8 yr in dicamba-resistant cotton. An experiment was established in North Carolina in 2011, and during the first 4 yr, different herbicide programs were applied. These programs included postemergence applications of glyphosate, alone or with dicamba, with or without residual herbicides. During the last 4 yr, all programs received glyphosate plus dicamba. Biennial rotations of postemergence applications of glyphosate only and glyphosate plus dicamba postemergence with and without preemergence herbicides were also included. Sequential applications of glyphosate plus dicamba were applied to the entire test area for the final 4 yr of the study. No herbicide program was entirely successful in controlling the weed community. Weed population trajectories were different according to species and herbicide program, creating all possible outcomes; some increased, others decreased, and others remained stable. Density of resistant A. palmeri increased during the first 4 yr with glyphosate-only programs (up to 11,739 plants m−2) and decreased a 96% during the final 4 yr, when glyphosate plus dicamba was implemented. This species had a strong influence on population levels of other weed species in the community. Goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.] was not affected by A. palmeri population levels and even increased its density in some herbicide programs, indicating that not only herbicide resistance but also reproductive rates and competitive dynamics are critical for determining weed population trajectories under intensive herbicide-based control programs. Frequency of glyphosate resistance reached a maximum of 62% after 4 yr, and those levels were maintained until the end of the experiment.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America
Figure 0

Table 1. Herbicide active ingredient, trade name, formulation, application rate, and manufacturer.

Figure 1

Table 2. Preemergence and early (EPOST), medium (MPOST), and late (LPOST) postemergence herbicide treatments applied in Rocky Mount, NC, in 2011–2014.a

Figure 2

Table 3. Weed species detected in the germinable seedbank during the experiment.

Figure 3

Table 4. Equations and R-squared (R2) of the models for each species and the treatments glyphosate (G), glyphosate plus dicamba (G+D), glyphosate plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+D+R), glyphosate plus dicamba plus acetochlor (G+D+Ac), glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+½D+R), and glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years (G+½D).

Figure 4

Table 5. Equations and R-squared (R2) of the models for each species and the treatments glyphosate (G), glyphosate plus dicamba (G+D), glyphosate plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+D+R), glyphosate plus dicamba plus acetochlor (G+D+Ac), glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+½D+R), and glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years (G+½D).

Figure 5

Figure 1. Seedling population density for (A) Amaranthus palmeri, (B) Mollugo verticillata, (C) Digitaria sanguinalis, (D) Cyperus compressus, and (E) Eclipta prostrata from soil cores in response to herbicide programs: glyphosate (G), glyphosate plus dicamba (G+D), glyphosate plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+D+R), glyphosate plus dicamba plus acetochlor (G+D+Ac), glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+½D+R) and glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years (G+½D), throughout the months after experiment initiation. Error bars represent standard error of the mean for each data point; an asterisk (*) indicates regression line slope is different from zero.

Figure 6

Figure 2. Density of (A) Eleusine indica, (B) Ambrosia artemisiifolia, (C) Chenopodium album, and (D) Spergula arvensis from soil cores with their respective regression lines for the different treatments: glyphosate (G), glyphosate plus dicamba (G+D), glyphosate plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+D+R), glyphosate plus dicamba plus acetochlor (G+D+Ac), glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+½D+R) and glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years (G+½D), throughout the months after experiment initiation (Months). Error bars represent standard error of the mean for each data point; an asterisk (*) indicates regression line slope is different from zero.

Figure 7

Figure 3. Frequency of glyphosate resistance of Amaranthus palmeri from soil cores in response to the herbicide treatments: glyphosate (G), glyphosate plus dicamba (G+D), glyphosate plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+D+R), glyphosate plus dicamba plus acetochlor (G+D+Ac), glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years plus residual herbicides (diuron plus pendimethalin) (G+½D+R) and glyphosate plus alternating dicamba between years (G+½D), throughout the months after experiment initiation (Months). Error bars represent standard error of the mean for each data point.