Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:28:19.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brent A. Sellers ,
Reid J. Smeda ,
William G. Johnson ,
J. Andrew Kendig  and
Mark R. Ellersieck
Brent A. Sellers
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
J. Andrew Kendig
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Mark R. Ellersieck
Affiliation:
Department of Math Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Amaranthus species, commonly referred to as “pigweeds,” are among the most troublesome weeds in many crop production systems. Effective control of these species often begins with an understanding of their biological and reproductive characteristics. At two sites in Missouri, six pigweed species (redroot pigweed, common waterhemp, spiny amaranth, tumble pigweed, smooth pigweed, and Palmer amaranth) were established in 60-m rows spaced 1.5 m apart. At biweekly intervals, plant heights and dry weights were recorded for each species; seed numbers were estimated at the end of the growing season. Dry weight of Palmer amaranth was up to 65% greater than those of all other species 2 wk after planting (WAP). Palmer amaranth biomass accumulation remained greater than those of the other species throughout the season and at the end of the season was 1.2- and 2.7-fold greater than those of redroot and tumble pigweed, respectively. Palmer amaranth was approximately 10 cm tall 2 WAP (37% taller than the next tallest species, redroot pigweed) and approximately 24 cm tall 4 WAP (45% taller than redroot pigweed). In contrast, common waterhemp had not emerged 2 WAP, and plant dry weight 4 WAP was approximately 11 and 26% those of Palmer amaranth and redroot pigweed, respectively. Final plant height ranged from 58 (tumble pigweed) to 208 cm (Palmer amaranth). Redroot pigweed, smooth pigweed, common waterhemp, and Palmer amaranth plants each produced over 250,000 seeds plant−1. Spiny amaranth and tumble pigweed produced approximately 114,000 and 50,000 seeds plant−1, respectively. Common waterhemp produced 535 seeds g−1 of total plant dry weight; this seed production was 1.4-, 1.4-, 2.0-, 3.4-, and 3.4-fold greater than those of redroot pigweed, smooth pigweed, Palmer amaranth, tumble pigweed, and spiny amaranth, respectively. Because the timing for many postemergence herbicides depends on weed height, rapid growth shortly after emergence reduces the time frame for optimum control of species such as Palmer amaranth. Delayed emergence also could result in escaped common waterhemp. Escape of only a few plants could result in a rapid increase in seed populations in the soil seed bank and may select for late-emerging biotypes.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHspiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus L. AMASPtumble pigweed, Amaranthus albus L. AMAALPlant heightseed productionweed biology
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , June 2003 , pp. 329 - 333
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

Alcocer-Ruthling, M., Thill, D. C., and Mallory-Smith, C. 1992. Monitoring the occurrence of sulfonylurea-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 6:437–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Baumgartner, J. R., Peterson, D. E., and Currie, R. S. 1998. Imazethapyr resistance in common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Sci. 46:403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. CTIC National Crop Residue Management Survey. Executive Summary, Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Dr. Suite 170, W. Lafayette, IN 47906.Google Scholar
Bader, B. M., DeFelice, M. S., Dilbeck, J. S., and Holman, C. S. 1994. Herbicide resistant weed populations discovered in Missouri. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 49:89–90.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgos, N. R., Kuk, Y., and Talbert, R. E. 2001. Amaranthus palmeri resistance and differential tolerance of Amaranthus palmeri and Amaranthus hybridus to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39:186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:587–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossett, B. J. and Toler, J. E. 1999. Differential control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) by postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2001. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds: Web page: http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: September 07, 2001.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. 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 Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Johnson, W. G. 2000. Herbicide resistant corn-survey results from 1998 and 2000. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 55:70–71.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z. and Horak, M. J. 1998. Influence of emergence time and density on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 46:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, S. T., Wax, L. M., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 1996. Imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44:789–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:41–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, M. J. 1940. The genetics and sex determination in the family Amaranthaceae. Genetics. 25:409–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, M. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 47:305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoup, D. E. and Al-Khatib, K. 2001. Common waterhemp resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 56:120.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 90–97.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., and Skinner, D. Z. 1999a. Use of PCR-based molecular markers to identify weed Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 47:518–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., Skinner, D. Z., and Kulakow, P. A. 1999b. Transferral of herbicide resistance traits from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis . Weed Sci. 47:538–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrucke, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distribution as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:853–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar