Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:32:28.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) regrowth following failed applications of glufosinate and fomesafen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2021

Jesse A. Haarmann Open the ORCID record for Jesse A. Haarmann [Opens in a new window] ,
Bryan G. Young  and
William G. Johnson
Jesse A. Haarmann*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jesse A. Haarmann, 915 W. State St., West Lafayette, IN47907 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapid vegetative growth and adverse application conditions are common factors leading to the failure of postemergence herbicides on Palmer amaranth. A sequential herbicide application, or respray, is often necessary to control weeds that have survived the initial herbicide application to protect crop yield and minimize weed seed production. The optimum timing after the initial application and the most effective herbicide for control of Palmer amaranth has not been characterized. The objectives of these experiments were to determine the optimum herbicide for treating Palmer amaranth regrowth, the optimum timing for each of those herbicides, and how the initial failed herbicide might affect efficacy of a second herbicide application. Bare ground field experiments were performed in 2017 and 2018 in which glufosinate or fomesafen herbicide failure was induced on Palmer amaranth plants that were 30 cm in height. Respray treatments of glufosinate, fomesafen, lactofen, 2,4-D, and dicamba were applied once at timings of 4 to 5 d, 7 d, or 11 d after the initial spray application. Nearly all herbicide treatment and timing combinations increased control by at least 13 percentage points compared to no respray herbicide treatment. Regardless of initial herbicide, glufosinate applied as a respray treatment was the most consistent and efficacious with up to 97% control. The specific herbicide used in the second application impacted final weed control more so than timing of the respray application. For instance, control by glufosinate respray treatments was 10 to 18 percentage points greater than control from lactofen respray treatments, whereas control decreased by 3 percentage points when respray applications of any herbicide were made 11 d after initial application of glufosinate compared to 4 to 5 and 7 d after initial application of glufosinate. In the event of failure to control Palmer amaranth with glufosinate or fomesafen, glufosinate should be applied in order to maximize control.

Keywords

glufosinatefomesafenlactofen24-DdicambaPalmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. WatsonSequential herbicide applicationherbicide failureherbicide respray
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 464 - 470
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri

References

Anonymous (2015) Cobra® herbicide product label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA CorporationGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Engenia® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF CorporationGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) Xtendimax® herbicide product label. St. Louis, MO: Bayer Crop ScienceGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019a) Liberty® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF CorporationGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019b) Flexstar® herbicide product label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection LLCGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019c) Enlist One® herbicide product label. Indianapolis, IN: Corteva AgriscienceGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2020) Liberty® herbicide FIFRA Sec. 24(c) Special Local Need Label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF CorporationGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, C, Hansen, CH, Moller, C, Kjaer-Pedersen, NK (2002) Regrowth of weed species after cutting. Weed Technol 16:873–879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK (2016) Multiple-herbicide resistance is widespread in roadside Palmer amaranth populations. PLoS One 11:e0148748 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, EE, Barbara, KK, Mohammed, YR, Bothner, B, Dyer, WE (2018). Constitutive Redox and Phosphoproteome Changes in Multiple Herbicide Resistant Avena fatua L. Are Similar to Those of Systemic Acquired Resistance and Systemic Acquired Acclimation. J Plant Physiol 220:105–114 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K, Loughin, TM (2001) Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci 49:8–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of weed height and glufosinate plus 2,4-D combinations on weed control in soybean with resistance to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:271–280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haarmann, JA, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2020). Control of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) regrowth after failed applications of glufosinate or fomesafen. Weed Technol doi: 10.1017/wet.2020.58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2020) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: March 25, 2019Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, RH, Qiang, S (2009) Composition of floating weed seeds in lowland rice fields in China and the effects of irrigation frequency and previous crops. Weed Res 49:417–427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillie, KJ, Giacomini, DA, Tranel, PJ (2020) Comparing Responses of Sensitive and Resistant Populations of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus var. rudis) to PPO Inhibitors. Weed Technol 34:140–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mager, HJ, Young, BG, Preece, JE (2006a) Characterization of compensatory weed growth. Weed Sci 54:274–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mager, HJ, Young, BG, Preece, JE (2006b) Efficacy of POST herbicides on weeds during compensatory growth. Weed Sci 54:321–325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, RM, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM, Richburg, JS, Braxton, LB (2014) Salvage Palmer Amaranth Programs Can Be Effective in Cotton Resistant to Glyphosate, 2,4-D, and Glufosinate. Weed Technol 28:316–322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkurunziza, L, Milberg, P (2007) Repeated grading of weed abundance and multivariate methods to improve efficacy in on-farm weed control trials: technical report. Weed Biol Manag 7:132–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, G, Griffin, T, Bagavathiannan, M, Gbur, EE (2014) In-field movement of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and its impact on cotton lint yield: evidence supporting a zero-threshold strategy. Weed Sci 62:237–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Steckel, LE, Koger, CH (2009) Weed seed contamination of cotton gin trash. Weed Technol 23:574–580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: Best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randell, TM, Hand, LC, Vance, JC, Culpepper, AS (2020) Interval between Sequential Glufosinate Applications Influences Weed Control in Cotton. Weed Technol doi: 10.1017/wet.2020.16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, RL, Coble, HD (1981) Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the activity of acifluorfen. Weed Sci 29:480–485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas-Perez, RA, Saski, CA, Noorai, RE, Srivastava, SK, Lawton-Rauh, AL, Nichols, RL, Roma-Burgos, N (2018) RNA-Seq Transcriptome Analysis of Amaranthus palmeri with Differential Tolerance to Glufosinate Herbicide. PLoS One 13:e0195488 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sikkema, PH, Brown, L, Shropshire, C, Spieser, H, Soltani, N (2008) Flat fan and air induction nozzles affect soybean herbicide efficacy. Weed Biol Manag 8:31–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Devkota, P, Johnson, WG, Smeda, RJ, Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK (2018) Phenology of five Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations grown in northern Indiana and Arkansas. Weed Sci 66:457–469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, BP, Ferrell, JA, Smith, HC, Fernandez, VJ, Leon, RG, Smith, CA (2017) Effect of sequential applications of protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control and peanut response. Weed Technol 31:46–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, GJ, Hart, SE, Wax, LM (1997b) Absorption and translocation of glufosinate on four weed species. Weed Sci 45:378–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, GJ, Wax, LM, Simmons, FW, Phillips, WH (1997a) Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth Stage. Weed Technol 11:484–488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, HK, Beffa, R, Preston, C, Westra, P, Dayan, FE (2020) A novel insight into the mode of action of glufosinate: how reactive oxygen species are formed. Photosynth Res 144:361–372 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vila-Aiub, MM, Ghersa, CM (2005) Building up resistance by recurrently exposing target plants to sublethal doses of herbicide. Eur J Agron 22:195–207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vann, RA, York, AC, Cahoon, CW, Buck, TB, Askew, MC, Seagroves, RW (2017) Glufosinate plus dicamba for rescue Palmer amaranth control in XtendFlexTM cotton. Weed Technol 31:666–674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2019) 2019 Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits & vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019-Weed-Survey_broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: August 29, 2020Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): A review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichert, RA, Bozsa, R, Talbert, RE, Oliver, LR (1992) Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides Weed Technol 6:19–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J, Tao, B, Messersmith, CG, Nalewaja, JD (2007) Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) is affected by stress. Weed Sci 55:240–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar