Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:12:47.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing chloroacetamide application timing in dicamba-resistant cotton production systems for control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2021

John T. Buol Open the ORCID record for John T. Buol [Opens in a new window] ,
Lucas X. Franca Open the ORCID record for Lucas X. Franca [Opens in a new window] ,
Darrin M. Dodds Open the ORCID record for Darrin M. Dodds [Opens in a new window] ,
J. Anthony Mills ,
Janice L. DuBien ,
Ashli E. Brown-Johnson ,
David R. Shaw  and
Daniel B. Reynolds Open the ORCID record for Daniel B. Reynolds [Opens in a new window]
John T. Buol
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Lucas X. Franca
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Darrin M. Dodds
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
J. Anthony Mills
Affiliation:
Weed Management Technology Development Representative, Bayer Corporation, Collierville, TN, USA
Janice L. DuBien
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Statistics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Ashli E. Brown-Johnson
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology, and Plant Pathology, and Director, Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Professor and Vice President, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences and Office of Research and Economic Development, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel B. Reynolds, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, 32 Creelman Street, Mississippi State, MS39762. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A chloroacetamide herbicide by application timing factorial experiment was conducted in 2017 and 2018 in Mississippi to investigate chloroacetamide use in a dicamba-based Palmer amaranth management program in cotton production. Herbicides used were S-metolachlor or acetochlor, and application timings were preemergence, preemergence followed by (fb) early postemergence, preemergence fb late postemergence, early postemergence alone, late postemergence alone, and early postemergence fb late postemergence. Dicamba was included in all preemergence applications, and dicamba plus glyphosate was included with all postemergence applications. Differences in cotton and weed response due to chloroacetamide type were minimal, and cotton injury at 14 d after late postemergence application was less than 10% for all application timings. Late-season weed control was reduced up to 30% and 53% if chloroacetamide application occurred preemergence or late postemergence only, respectively. Late-season weed densities were minimized if multiple applications were used instead of a single application. Cotton height was reduced by up to 23% if a single application was made late postemergence relative to other application timings. Chloroacetamide application at any timing except preemergence alone minimized late-season weed biomass. Yield was maximized by any treatment involving multiple applications or early postemergence alone, whereas applications preemergence or late postemergence alone resulted in up to 56% and 27% yield losses, respectively. While no yield loss was reported by delaying the first of sequential applications until early postemergence, forgoing a preemergence application is not advisable given the multiple factors that may delay timely postemergence applications such as inclement weather.

Keywords

AcetochlordicambaglyphosateS-metolachlorPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watsoncotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Preemergencepostemergenceresidual herbicideauxin
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 1007 - 1013
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: Barry Brecke, University of Florida

References

Anonymous (2018) Cotton. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University Extension. http://extension.msstate.edu/agriculture/crops/cotton. Accessed: December 6, 2018Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Reboud, X (2009) Selecting for weed resistance: herbicide rotation and mixture. Weed Technol 23:363–370 10.1614/WT-09-008.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188 10.1126/science.1141596CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 10.1614/WT-D-10-00047.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brabham, C, Norsworthy, JK, Houston, MM, Varanasi, VK, Barber, T (2019) Confirmation of S-metolachlor resistance in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Technol 33:720–726 10.1017/wet.2019.44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Braswell, LR, Jennings, KM (2015a) Weed control in cotton by combinations of microencapsulated acetochlor and various residual herbicides applied preemergence. Weed Technol 29:740–750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM (2015b) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in dicamba-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 29:758–770 10.1614/WT-D-15-00041.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three- factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040021xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, GS, Johnson, WG (2012) Influence of glyphosate or glufosinate combinations with growth regulator herbicides and other agrochemicals in controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds. Weed Technol 26:638–643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clewis, SB, Miller, DK, Koger, CH, Baughman, TA, Price, AJ, Porterfield, D, Wilcut, JW (2008) Weed management and crop response with glyphosate, S-metolachlor, trifloxysulfuron, prometryn, and MSMA in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 22:160–167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clewis, SB, Wilcut, JW, Porterfield, D (2006) Weed management with S-metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Weed Technol 20:232–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, York, AC, Wilcut, JW (2009) Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen, and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol 23:391–397 10.1614/WT-09-007.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, CC, Brinker, RJ, inventors; Monsanto Company, assignee (2014) January 14. Methods for weed control using plants transformed with dicamba monooxygenase. US patent publication number US8629328 B2Google 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 29–46 in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Geier, PW, Stahlman, PW, Frihauf, JC (2006) KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no-tillage corn. Weed Technol 20:622–626 10.1614/WT-05-048R2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J, Segel, LA (1990) Modelling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol 4:186–198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: January 20, 2019Google Scholar
Inman, MD, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Everman, WJ, Bollman, SL, Fowler, JT, Cole, RM, Soteres, JK (2016) Long-term management of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in dicamba-tolerant cotton. Weed Sci 64:161–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK (2009) Soybean canopy and tillage effects on emergence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from a natural seed bank. Weed Sci 57:644–651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuchehri, MR, Dotray, PA, Keeling, JW (2017) Enlist™ weed control systems for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in Texas high plains cotton. Weed Technol 31:793–798 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
Merchant, RM, Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Steckel, LE, York, AC, Braxton, LB, Ford, JC (2013) Weed response to 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba applied alone or with glufosinate. J Cotton Sci 17:212–218 Google Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT, Ikley, JT, Spaunhorst, DJ, Butts, TR (2015) Herbicide program approaches for managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus and Amaranthus rudis) in future soybean-trait technologies. Weed Technol 29:716–729 10.1614/WT-D-15-00045.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, GD, Baumann, PA, Chandler, JM (2001) Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth and yield. Weed Sci 15:408–412 Google Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modeling glyphosate resistance management strategies for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 25:335–343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, McClelland, M, Griffith, GM (2009) Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist response to pre-plant application of residual herbicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Crop Prot 28:62–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, Dr, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Friswold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP1):31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KR, Hodges, HF, McCarty, WH, McKinion, JM (1996) Weather and Cotton Growth: Present and Future. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. https://www.mafes.msstate.edu/publications/bulletins/b1061.pdf. Accessed: January 31, 2021Google Scholar
Ritchie, GL, Bednarz, CW, Jost, PH, Brown, SM (2004) Cotton Growth and Development. University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Cooperative Extension Service. http://www.ugacotton.com/vault/file/UGA-Ext.-Pub.-Cotton-Growth-Development-2004.pdf. Accessed: February 4, 2021Google Scholar
Rowland, MW, Murray, DS, Verhalen, LM (1999) Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci: 47:305–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, RA, Burgos, NR, Tranel, PJ, Singh, S, Glasgow, L, Scott, RC, Nichols, RL (2016) Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide in Palmer amaranth from Arkansas. Pest Manag Sci 5:864–869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Sandell, LD, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ, Irmak, S, Jhala, AJ (2017) Comparison of herbicide programs for season-long control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in soybean. Weed Technol 31:53–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in proc mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Senseman, SA, ed (2007a) Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 251–252 Google Scholar
Senseman, SA, ed (2007b) Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 275–278 Google Scholar
Smith, DT, Baker, RV, Steele, GL (2000) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 14:122–126 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0122:PAAPIO]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in corn (Zea mays) with single preemergence and sequential applications of residual herbicides. Weed Technol 16:755–761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, GL, Porpiglia, PJ, Chandler, JM (2005) Efficacy of KIH-485 on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and selected broadleaf weeds in corn. Weed Technol 19:866–869 10.1614/WT-04-229R1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO, Bond, JA, Landry, RL, Edwards, HM (2013) Effect of coapplied glyphosate, pyrithiobac, pendimethalin, or S-metolachlor on cotton injury, growth, and yield. Weed Technol 27:305–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, MG, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Vink, JP, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2017) Benefit of tank mixing dicamba with glyphosate applied after emergence for weed control in dicamba- and glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can J Plant Sci 97:891–901 Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2021a) Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: February 19, 2021Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2021b) National Water and Climate Center: Tunica, Mississippi. https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=2034. Accessed: February 27, 2021Google Scholar
Vann, RA, York, AC, Cahoon, CW, Buck, TB, Askew, MC, Seagroves, RW (2017) Glufosinate plus dicamba for rescue Palmer amaranth control in XtendFlex™ cotton. Weed Technol 31:666–675 10.1017/wet.2017.68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America (2017) WSSA Survey Ranks Most Common and Most Troublesome Weeds in Broadleaf Crops, Fruits and Vegetables. https://wssa.net/2017/05/wssa-survey-ranks-most-common-and-most-troublesome-weeds-in-broadleaf-crops-fruits-and-vegetables. Accessed: February 4, 2021Google Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. Weed Technol 25:183–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, MS, Hayes, RM, Steckel, LE (2016) Evaluating cover crops and herbicides for glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in cotton. Weed Technol 30:415–422 10.1614/WT-D-15-00113.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, RC (2010) Towards understanding and use of mixed-model analysis of agricultural experiments. Can J Plant Sci 90:605–662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar