Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:28:47.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) regrowth after failed applications of glufosinate or fomesafen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2020

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
*
Corresponding author: Jesse A. Haarmann, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN47907. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Foliar herbicide applications to waterhemp can result in inadequate control, leading to subsequent regrowth that often necessitates a second herbicide application to prevent crop interference and seed production. The most effective herbicides and application timings are unknown in situations where waterhemp has regrown from previous injury, such as failed applications of glufosinate or fomesafen. The objective of this research was to determine the optimum combination of herbicide and time from the first failed herbicide application to a sequential herbicide application for control of waterhemp regrowth. Reduced rates of either glufosinate or fomesafen were applied to 30-cm waterhemp plants to mimic failure of the initial herbicide application in separate bare-ground experiments. Respray treatments of glufosinate, fomesafen, lactofen, 2,4-D, or dicamba were applied 3, 7, or 11 d after the initial application. Glufosinate and fomesafen as respray treatments resulted in 90% to 100% control of waterhemp regardless of application timing following a failed glufosinate application. After a failed application of fomesafen, applying glufosinate or 2,4-D resulted in 87% to 99% control of waterhemp. Waterhemp control with fomesafen and lactofen was 13% to 21% greater, respectively, when those treatments followed glufosinate compared with fomesafen as the initial herbicides. On the basis of these results, glufosinate and fomesafen should be used for respray situations after inadequate control from glufosinate; and 2,4-D or glufosinate should be used for respray situations following inadequate control from fomesafen where crop tolerance and herbicide product labels allow. Although glufosinate followed by glufosinate was very effective for controlling waterhemp regrowth, caution should be exercised to avoid sequential application of herbicide with the same site of action.

Keywords

Fomesafenglufosinatelactofen2,4-Ddicambawaterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq) J.D. Sauerherbicide failureherbicide respraysequential application
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 794 - 800
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Anonymous (2015) Cobra® herbicide product label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA Corporation Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Engenia® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) Xtendimax® herbicide product label. St. Louis, MO: Bayer Crop Science Google Scholar
Anonymous (2019a) Liberty® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation Google Scholar
Anonymous (2019b) Flexstar® herbicide product label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC Google Scholar
Anonymous (2019c) Enlist One® herbicide product label. Indianapolis, IN: Corteva Agriscience Google Scholar
Andreasen, C, Hansen, CH, Moller, C, Kjaer-Pedersen, NK (2002) Regrowth of weed species after cutting. Weed Technol 16:873–879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Gealy, DR, Boerboom, CM (1994) Effect of thifensulfuron concentration and droplet size on phytotoxicity, absorption, and translocation in pea (Pisum sativum). Weed Sci 42:482–486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, ST, Dobrow, MH, Ferrell, JA, Webster, TM (2014) Influence of carrier volume and nozzle selection on Palmer amaranth control. Peanut Sci 41:120–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Clint Hoffmann, W, Kruger, GR (2018) Spray droplet size and carrier volume effect on dicamba and glufosinate efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 74:2020–2029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatham, LA, Wu, C, Riggins, CW, Hager, AG, Young, BG, Roskamp, GK, Tranel, PJ (2015) EPSPS gene amplification is present in the majority of glyphosate-resistant Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) populations. Weed Technol 29:48–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2002) Glufosinate efficacy on amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:326–331 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
Gauvrit, C, Chauvel, B (2010). Sensitivity of Ambrosia artemisiifolia to glufosinate and glyphosate at various developmental stages. Weed Res 50:503–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2020) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: March 25, 2019Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudsk, P, Kristensen, J (1992) Effect of environmental factors on herbicide performance. Pages 173–186 in Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress. Melbourne, Australia: Weed Science Society of Victoria, Melbourne AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Liu, SH, Campbell, RA, Studens, JA, Wagner, RG (1996) Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) as influenced by droplet size, droplet number, and herbicide concentration. Weed Sci 44:482–488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mager, HJ, Young, BG, Preece, JE (2006b) Characterization of compensatory weed growth. Weed Sci 54:274–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mager, HJ, Young, BG, Preece, JE (2006a) 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
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(SI I):31–62 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
Randell, TM, Hand, LC, Vance, JC, Culpepper, AS (2020) Interval between sequential glufosinate applications influences weed control in cotton. Weed Technol. Published online ahead of print January 31, 2020. doi:10.1017/wet.2020.16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, RL, Coble, HD (1981) Penetration, translocation, and metabolism of acifluorfen in soybean (Glycine max), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum). Weed Sci 29:474–480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, JL, Chatham, LA, Riggins, CW, Tranel, PJ, Bradley, KW (2015) Distribution of herbicide resistances and molecular mechanisms conferring resistance in Missouri waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) populations. Weed Sci 63:336–345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Li, J (2004) Glutamine synthetase activity and ammonium accumulation is influenced by time of glufosinate application. Pestic Biochem Physiol 78:9–20 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
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG, Simmons, FW, Bollero, GA (2003) Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development. Weed Sci 51:898–903 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 Google Scholar
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
Wichert, RA, Bozsa, R, Talbert, RE, Oliver, LR (1992) Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides Weed Technol 6:19–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar