Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:08:34.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aaron G. Hager ,
Loyd M. Wax ,
Edward W. Stoller  and
Germán A. Bollero
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Edward W. Stoller
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Germán A. Bollero
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common waterhemp has become a problem weed species in Midwest soybean production. Determining the critical interference period after soybean and common waterhemp emergence is necessary for the implementation of weed control practices before soybean seed yield loss occurs. Field experiments were conducted during 1996, 1997, and 1998 to determine the influence of duration of common waterhemp interference on soybean seed yield. Removal of common waterhemp 2 wk after soybean unifoliolate leaf expansion resulted in soybean seed yield equivalent to a season-long weed-free control. Delaying common waterhemp removal until 4 wk after soybean unifoliolate leaf expansion resulted in decreased soybean seed yield. Allowing common waterhemp interference to persist 10 wk after soybean unifoliolate leaf expansion reduced soybean seed yield by an average of 43% over 3 yr. These results suggest that soybean producers should implement common waterhemp management strategies earlier than 4 wk after soybean unifoliolate leaf expansion in order to reduce the potential loss of soybean seed yield.

Keywords

Acifluorfensethoxydimcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer. AMATAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pioneer 9362’, ‘Pioneer 9363’Weed competitioninterference removal timing
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 607 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1981. Identification of triazine-resistant Amaranthus spp. Weed Sci. 29:345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. D., Roeth, F. W., and Martin, A. R. 1996. Occurrence and control of triazine-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:570–575.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 2000. Amaranthus competition in soybean. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:81.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or threefactor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hyrst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1968. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci. 16:214–216.Google Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:514–520.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: New York Botanical Garden. pp. 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Stoller, E. W. 1997. Waterhemp management in agronomic crops. Univ. Ill. Bull. 855:12.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinz, J.R.R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to the Common Pigweeds of the Great Plains. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. 12 p.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.Google Scholar
Nave, W. R. and Wax, L. M. 1971. Effect of weeds on soybean yield and harvesting efficiency. Weed Sci. 19:533–535.Google Scholar
Pratt, D. B. and Owen, M.D.K. 1999. Species circumscriptions of common and tall waterhemp. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:171.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious Amaranths. Evolution 11:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an acetolactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Res. 37:93–101.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest—distribution, importance, and management. Proc. Iowa Integr. Crop Manag. Conf. 7:239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., Skinner, D. Z., and Kulakow, P. A. 1999. Transferal of herbicide resistance traits from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis . Weed Sci. 47:538–543.Google Scholar