Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:43:01.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grain Sorghum and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Response to Herbicide Programs and Agronomic Practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

Thierry E. Besançon ,
Ronnie W. Heiniger ,
Randy Weisz  and
Wesley J. Everman
Thierry E. Besançon*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Ronnie W. Heiniger
Affiliation:
Professor, Professor Emeritus, and Associate Professor, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Randy Weisz
Affiliation:
Professor, Professor Emeritus, and Associate Professor, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Professor, Professor Emeritus, and Associate Professor, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control remains a major challenge for economically viable grain sorghum production in the southeastern United States due to crop sensitivity to weed competition during early growth stages. Field experiments were conducted in 2012 and 2013 to determine the effects of grain sorghum row spacing, population density, and herbicide programs on Palmer amaranth control, crop growth, and grain yield. Treatments included row spacings of 19, 38, and 76 cm; grain sorghum population densities of 99,000, 198,000, 297,000, and 396,000 plants ha−1; and three herbicide programs: (1) a nontreated control, (2) S-metolachlor at 1,410 g ai ha−1 plus atrazine at 1,820 g ha−1 PRE, and (3) S-metolachlor at 1,070 g ha−1 plus atrazine at 1,380 g ha−1 PRE followed by 2,4 D at 330 g ha−1 POST. Palmer amaranth control benefited from the addition of a POST herbicide and from crop density ≥297,000 plants ha−1. Under weedy conditions, Palmer amaranth density was not affected by narrower row spacing or increased crop density, whereas its dry biomass was reduced by 33% with 19 and 38 compared to 76 cm rows, and by 43% with ≥297,000 vs 99,000 plants ha−1. Row spacing had no effect on light interception by the crop canopy. However, crop density influenced canopy closure with maximum light interception occurring one and a half weeks earlier for density ≥297,000 plants ha−1. Yield increased by 18% for 19 vs 38 and 76 cm rows, whereas grain crop density had no effect. Overall, these results indicate that the combination of row spacing≤30 cm and crop density ≥297,000 plants ha−1 provided at least 97% Palmer amaranth control in the absence of POST application and reduced its biomass by 32% in nontreated plots compared to 76 cm row spacing and crop density≤198,000 plants ha−1.

Keywords

AtrazineS-metolachlor2,4-DPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ssp. bicolor.Crop densitylight interceptionrow widthweed control
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 781 - 792
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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 for this paper: Jason Bond, Mississippi State University

References

Literature Cited

Andrade, FH, Calviño, P, Cirilo, A, Barbieri, P (2002) Yield responses to narrow rows depend on increased radiation interception. Agron J 94:975–980 Google Scholar
Bayu, W, Rethman, NFG, Hammes, PS (2005) Growth and yield compensation in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) as a function of planting density and nitrogen fertilizer in semi-arid areas of northeastern Ethiopia. S Afr J Plant Soil 22:76–83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besançon, T, Heiniger, R, Weisz, R, Everman, W (2017) Weed response to agronomic practices and herbicide strategies in grain sorghum. Agron J 109:1–9 Google Scholar
Bishnoi, UR, Mays, DA, Fabasso, MT (1990) Response of no-till and conventionally planted grain sorghum to weed control method and row spacing. Plant Soil 129:117–120 Google Scholar
Buehring, NW, Nice, GRW, Shaw, DR (2002) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control and soybean (Glycine max) response to soybean row spacing and population in three weed management systems. Weed Technol 16:131–141 Google Scholar
Burnside, OC, Wicks, GA (1967) The effect of weed removal treatments on sorghum growth. Weeds 15:204–207 Google Scholar
Burnside, OC, Wicks, GA (1969) Influence of weed competition on sorghum growth. Weed Sci 17:332–334 Google Scholar
Conley, SP, Stevens, WG, Dunn, DD (2005) Grain sorghum response to row spacing, plant density, and planter skips. Crop Manag 4, 10.1094/CM-2005-0718-01-RSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaarts, AP (1993) Effects of competition with weeds on the growth, development and yield of sorghum. J Agric Sci 120:187–196 Google Scholar
Everman, WJ, Heiniger, R, Weisz, PR, Riar, R, Besancon, TE (2012) Sorghum 2012 Test Report and Recommendations. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension Service, 25 pGoogle Scholar
Fischer, KS, Wilson, GL (1975) Studies of grain production in Sorghum bicolor (L. Moench). V.* Effect of planting density on growth and yield. Aust J Agric Res 26:31–41 Google Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38 in Camper ND ed., Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Fromme, DD, Fernandez, CJ, Grichar, WJ, Jahn, RL (2012) Grain sorghum response to hybrid, row spacing, and plant populations along the Upper Texas gulf coast. Int J Agron 2012, 10.1155/2012/930630Google Scholar
Gerik, T, Bean, BW, Vanderlip, RL (2003) Sorghum Growth and Development. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System. Pp 1–7 Google Scholar
Grafen, A, Hails, R eds (2002) Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 409 pGoogle Scholar
Harder, DB, Sprague, CL, Renner, KA (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technol 21:744–752 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017). The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed May 31, 2017Google Scholar
Hock, SM, Knezevic, SZ, Martin, AR, Lindquist, JL (2006) Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Sci 54:38–46 Google Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK, Bridges, W, Riley, MB (2008) Influence of glyphosate timing and row width on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and pusley (Richardia spp.) demographics in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 56:408–415 Google Scholar
Jones, OR, Johnson, GL (1991) Row width and plant density effects on Texas High Plains sorghum. J Prod Agric 4:613–621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786 Google Scholar
Limon-Ortega, A, Mason, SC, Martin, AR (1998) Production practices improve grain sorghum and pearl millet competitiveness with weeds. Agron J 90:227–232 Google Scholar
Loomis, R, Williams, W (1969) Productivity and the morphology of crop stands: patterns with leaves. Pages 27–45 in Eastin JD, Haskins FA, Sullivan CY, Van Bavel CHM, Dinauer RC, eds. Physiological Aspects of Crop Yield. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy & Crop Science Society of America Google Scholar
Maas, AL, Hanna, WW, Mullinix, BG (2007) Planting date and row spacing affects grain yield and height of pearl millet Tifgrain 102 in the Southeastern coastal plain of the United States. J SAT Agric Res 5:1–4 Google Scholar
McMaster, GS, Wilhelm, WW (1997) Growing degree-days: one equation, two interpretations. Agric For Meteorol 87:291–300 Google Scholar
Moore, JW, Murray, DS, Westerman, RB (2004) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) effects on the harvest and yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol 18:23–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nice, GRW, Buehring, NW, Shaw, DR (2001) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to shading, soybean (Glycine max) row spacing, and population in three management systems. Weed Technol 15:155–162 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Frederick, JR (2005) Integrated weed management strategies for maize (Zea mays) production on the southeastern coastal plains of North America. Crop Prot 24:119–126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliveira, MJ (2004) Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52:802–807 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 Google Scholar
Schultz, JL, Myers, DB, Bradley, KW (2015) Influence of soybean seeding rate, row spacing, and herbicide programs on the control of resistant waterhemp in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:169–176 Google Scholar
Shore, D (2015) Growing the Grain Industry. NCSU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences News. URL https://cals.ncsu.edu/news/growing-the-grain-industry/. Accessed May 31, 2017Google Scholar
Staggenborg, SA, Fjell, DL, Devlin, DL, Gordon, WB, Marsh, BH (1999) Grain sorghum response to row spacings and seeding rates in Kansas. J Prod Agric 12:390–395 Google Scholar
Stahlman, PW, Wicks, GA (2000) Weeds and their control in grain sorghum. Pages 535–590 in Smith CW & Frederiksen RA eds. Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. New York, NY: Wiley Google Scholar
State Climate Office of North Carolina. (2015). Weather and Climate. http://climate.ncsu.edu/. Accessed May 31, 2017Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL (2004) Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol 18:947–952 Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Soltani, N, Nurse, RE, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2012) Precipitation influences pre- and post-emergence herbicide efficacy in corn. Am J Plant Sci 3:1193–1204 Google Scholar
Teasdale, JR (1995) Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol 9:113–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR (1998) Influence of corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) yield. Weed Sci 46:447–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, BE, Kells, JJ (2001) Effect of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth. Weed Technol 15:413–418 Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M, Dibo, AA, Aguilara, A, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1994) Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron J 86:591–595 Google Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332–338 Google Scholar
Westgate, ME, Forcella, F, Reicosky, DC, Somsen, J (1997) Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern US Corn Belt: radiation-use efficiency and grain yield. Field Crops Res 49:249–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, AF, Collier, JW, Clark, LE, Havelka, UD (1964) Effect of weeds and cultural practices on sorghum yields. Weeds 12:209–211 Google Scholar
Yelverton, FH, Coble, HD (1991) Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:169–174 Google Scholar