Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:18:56.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of auxin herbicides on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) groundcover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2021

Grant L. Priess Open the ORCID record for Grant L. Priess [Opens in a new window] ,
Jason K. Norsworthy ,
Rodger B. Farr ,
Andy Mauromoustakos ,
Thomas R. Butts Open the ORCID record for Thomas R. Butts [Opens in a new window]  and
Trenton L. Roberts
Grant L. Priess*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Distinguished Professor, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Rodger B. Farr
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Andy Mauromoustakos
Affiliation:
Professor, Agriculture Statistics Lab, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Thomas R. Butts
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Extension Weed Scientist, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Trenton L. Roberts
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Soil Fertility/Soil Testing, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Grant L. Priess, 1366 W Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR72762. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In current and next-generation weed control technologies, sequential applications of contact and systemic herbicides for postemergence control of troublesome weeds are needed to mitigate the evolution of herbicide resistance. A clear understanding of the impact auxin herbicide symptomology has on Palmer amaranth groundcover will aid optimization of sequential herbicide applications. Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted in Fayetteville, AR, and a laboratory experiment was conducted in Lonoke, AR, in 2020 to evaluate changes in Palmer amaranth groundcover following an application of 2,4-D and dicamba with various nozzles, droplet sizes, and velocities. Field experiments utilized three nozzles: Extended Range (XR), Air Induction Extended Range (AIXR), and Turbo TeeJet® Induction (TTI), to assess the effect of spray droplet size on changes in Palmer amaranth groundcover. Nozzle did not affect Palmer amaranth groundcover when dicamba was applied. However, nozzle selection did impact groundcover when 2,4-D was applied; the following nozzle order XR > AIXR > TTI reduced Palmer amaranth groundcover the most in both site-years of the field experiment. This result (XR > AIXR > TTI) matches percent spray coverage data for 2,4-D and is inversely related to spray droplet size data. Rapid reductions of Palmer amaranth groundcover from 100% at time zero to 39.4% to 64.1% and 60.0% to 85.8% were observed 180 min after application in greenhouse and field experiments, respectively, regardless of herbicide or nozzle. In one site-year of the greenhouse and field experiments, regrowth of Palmer amaranth occurred 10,080 min (14 d) after an application of either 2,4-D or dicamba to larger than labeled weeds. In all experiments, complete reduction of live Palmer amaranth tissue was not observed 21 d after application with any herbicide or nozzle combination. Control of Palmer amaranth escapes with reduced groundcover may potentially lead to increased selection pressure on sequentially applied herbicides due to a reduction in spray solution contact with the targeted pest.

Keywords

24-DdicambaPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri (S.) WatsonApplication equipmentdigital imagery analysisfield cropsherbicide interactionleaf areasymptomology
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2021 , pp. 768 - 778
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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: Vipan Kumar, Kansas State University

References

Ahrens, WH, ed (1994) Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 174–149Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, DD, Roeth, FW, Martin, AR (1996) Occurrence and control of atrazine-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:570–575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Engenia® herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx. Accessed: August 29, 2020Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) XtendiMax® with VaporGrip® herbicide label. Monsanto Publication 35008S7-05. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto. http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx. Accessed: August 29, 2020Google Scholar
Anonymous (2019a) Enlist Duo® herbicide label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx. Accessed: August 29, 2020Google Scholar
Anonymous (2019b) Enlist One® herbicide label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx. Accessed: August 29, 2020Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Askew, SD, Corbett, JL, Wilcut, JW (2005) Glufosinate antagonizes clethodim control of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Technol 19:664–668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler Ellis, MC, Webb, DA, Western, NM (2004) The effect of different spray liquids on the foliar retention of agricultural spray by wheat plants in a canopy. Pest Manag Sci 60:786–794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Hoffmann, WC, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2018a) Droplet velocity from broadcast agricultural nozzles as influenced by pulse-width modulation. Pages 24–52 in Fritz BK, Butts TR, eds. Pesticide Formulations and Delivery Systems: Innovative Application, Formulation, and Adjuvant Technologies, STP 1610. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM InternationalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Sandell, LD, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Loux, MM, Bradley, KW, Conley, SP, Stoltenberg, DE, Arriaga, FJ, Davis, VM (2016) Management of pigweed (Amaranthus ssp.) in glufosinate resistant soybean in Midwest and Midsouth. Weed Technol 30:355–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BF, Hoffmann, WC, Kruger, GR (2018b) Spray droplet size and carrier volume effect on dicamba and glufosinate efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 74:2020–2029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2019) Optimum droplet size using a pulse-width modulation sprayer for applications of 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate. Agron J 111:1425–1432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, FK, Antuniassi, UR, Chechetto, RG, Mota, AAB, Jesus, MG de, Carvalho, LR de (2017) Viscosity, surface tension and droplet size of sprays of different formulations of insecticides and fungicides. Crop Prot 101:19–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, AH (1992) Herbicides and Plant Physiology. London: Chapman and Hall. Pp 82–106 Google Scholar
Coetzer, EK, Al-Khatib, K, Loughin, TM (2000) Glufosinate efficacy absorption, and translocation in Amaranthus species as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci 49:8–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, N, Massinon, M, Salah, SOT, Lebeau, F (2017) Investigation on optimal spray properties for ground based agricultural applications using deposition and retention models. Biosyst Eng 162:99–111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dornai, D, Gerstl, Z, Chen, Y, Mingelgrin, U (1991) Trifluralin effects on the development of cotton in arid zone soils. Weed Res 31:375–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1981) Leaf absorptances of Mohave and Sonoran Desert plants. Oecologia 49:366–370 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ennis, WB, Williamson, RE (1963) Influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low-volume herbicidal sprays. Weeds 11:67–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Hart, WE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, TC (2001) Effect of Venturi-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 15:75–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedtke, C, Duke, SO (2005) Herbicides. Pages 247–330 in Hock, B, Elster, EF, eds. Plant Toxicology. New York: Dekker Google Scholar
Forseth, IN, Ehleringer, JR, Werk, KS, Cook, CS (1984) Field water relations of Sonoran Desert annuals. Ecology 65:1436–1444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, WA, Kimberley, M, Zabkiewicz, JA (2005) Universal spray droplet adhesion model. Trans ASAE 48:1321–1330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K (2007) Auxin herbicide action. Plant Signal Behav 2:421–423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, PG, Al-Khatib, K (2003) Temperature effects on germination and growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis). Weed Sci 51:869–875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, WC, Hewitt, AJ (2005) Comparison of three imaging systems for water-sensitive papers. Appl Eng Agric 21:961–964 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, JR (1977) The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic Sci 8:515–520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018) Influence of broadcast spray nozzle on the deposition, absorption, and efficacy of dicamba plus glyphosate on four glyphosate-resistant dicot weed species. Weed Technol 32:174–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Ashford, R, Ford, RJ (1974) Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci 22:31–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Brandt, SA, Morse, P, Ashford, R (1972) Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci 20:450–452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, RM, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM, Richburg, JS, Braxton, LB (2014) Controlling glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton with resistance to glyphosate, 2,4-D, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 28:291–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK (2019) Influence of weed size on herbicide interactions for Enlist™ and Roundup Ready® Xtend® technologies. Weed Technol 33:569–577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Barber, T (2015) Influence of droplet size on efficacy of the formulated products Engenia, Roundup Powermax, and Liberty. Weed Technol 29:641–652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Barber, TL (2016) Effect of nozzle selection and spray volume on droplet size and efficacy of Engenia tank-mix combinations. Weed Technol 30:377–390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Peter, F, Norsworthy, JK, Beffa, R (2020) Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of glyphosate, glufosinate, and dicamba mixtures in Echinochloa crus-galli and Amaranthus palmeri. Pest Manag Sci 76:3078–3087 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nairn, JJ, Forster, WA, van Leeuwen, RM (2013) “Universal” spray droplet adhesion model-accounting for hairy leaves. Weed Res 53:407–417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, S, Shaw, D, Llewellyn, R, Nichols, R, Webster, T, Bradley, K, Frisvold, G, Powles, S, Burgos, N, Witt, W, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SI):31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyttens, D, Dhoop, M, Blauwer, VD, Hermann, O (2009) Drift-reducing nozzles and their biological efficacy. Commun Agric Appl Biol 74:47–55 Google ScholarPubMed
Priess, GL, Norsworthy, JK, Roberts, TL, Spurlock, TN (2020a) Flumioxazin effects on soybean canopy formation and soil-borne pathogen presence. Weed Technol 34:711–717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priess, GL, Norsworthy, JK, Roberts, TL, Spurlock, TN, Gbur, EE (2020b) Soybean growth and incidence of soil-borne fungi as influenced by metribuzin. Agron J 112:5132–5142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, LC (2000) Soybean canopy coverage and light interception measurement using digital imagery. Crop Sci 40:834–837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, (2001) Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol 15:453–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salyani, M, Zhu, H, Sweeb, R, Pai, N (2013) Assessment of spray distribution with water-sensitive paper. CIGR J 15:101–111 Google Scholar
Shell, GSG, Lang, ARG (1976) Movements of sunflower leaves over a 24-h period. Agric Meteorol 16:161–170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterling, TM, Hall, JC (1997) Mechanism of action of natural auxins and the auxinic herbicides. Pages 111–141 in Roe, RM, Burton, JD, Kuhr, RJ, eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press Google Scholar
Stewart, C, Nurse, R, Hamill, A, Sikkema, P (2010) Environment and soil conditions influence pre- and postemergence herbicide efficacy in soybean. Weed Technol 3:234–243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, SR, Coble, HD, Raper, CD Jr, Rufty, TW Jr (1999) Comparative responses of soybean (Glycine max), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to root zone and aerial temperatures. Weed Sci 47:167–174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar