Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:24:45.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in postharvest wheat stubble in the Central Great Plains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2021

Vipan Kumar Open the ORCID record for Vipan Kumar [Opens in a new window] ,
Rui Liu ,
Amit J. Jhala ,
Prashant Jha  and
Misha Manuchehri
Vipan Kumar*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Rui Liu
Affiliation:
Assistant Scientist, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Amit J. Jhala
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Lincoln, NE, USA
Prashant Jha
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Iowa State University, Department of Agronomy, Ames, IA, USA
Misha Manuchehri
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Stillwater, OK, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Vipan Kumar, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, 1232 240th Avenue, Hays, KS67601 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Late-season control of Palmer amaranth in postharvest wheat stubble is important for reducing the seedbank. Our objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of late-season postemergence herbicides for Palmer amaranth control, shoot dry biomass, and seed production in postharvest wheat stubble. Field experiments were conducted at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS, during 2019 and 2020 growing seasons. The study site had a natural seedbank of Palmer amaranth. Herbicide treatments were applied 3 wk after wheat harvest when Palmer amaranth plants had reached the inflorescence initiation stage. Palmer amaranth was controlled by 96% to 98% 8 wk after treatment and shoot biomass as well as seed production was prevented when paraquat was applied alone or when mixed with atrazine, metribuzin, flumioxazin, 2,4-D, sulfentrazone, pyroxasulfone + sulfentrazone, or flumioxazin + metribuzin, and with glyphosate + dicamba, glyphosate + 2,4-D, saflufenacil + 2,4-D, glufosinate + dicamba + glyphosate, and glufosinate + 2,4-D + glyphosate. Palmer amaranth was controlled by 89% to 93% with application of glyphosate, glufosinate, dicamba + 2,4-D, saflufenacil + atrazine, and saflufenacil + metribuzin resulting in Palmer amaranth shoot biomass of 15 to 56 g m−2 and production of 1,080 to 7,040 seeds m−2. Palmer amaranth control was less than 86% with application of dicamba, 2,4-D, dicamba + atrazine, and saflufenacil resulting in Palmer amaranth shoot biomass of 38 to 47 g m−2 and production of 3,110 to 6,190 seeds m−2. Palmer amaranth was controlled 63% and 72%, shoot biomass was 178 and 161 g m−2, and seed production was 35,180 and 39,510 seeds m−2, respectively, with application of 2,4-D + bromoxynil + fluroxypyr, and bromoxynil + pyrasulfotole + atrazine. Growers should use these effective postemergence herbicide mixes for Palmer amaranth control to prevent seed prevention postharvest in wheat stubble.

Keywords

Atrazinebromoxynildicambaflumioxazinfluroxypyrglufosinateglyphosatemetribuzinparaquatpyrasulfotolepyroxasulfonesaflufenacilsulfentrazone24-DwheatTriticum aestivum L.Palmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. WatsonHerbicide programslate-seasonseed productionshoot biomass
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 945 - 949
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: Drew Lyon, Washington State University

References

Anderson, RL, Nielsen, DC (1996) Emergence pattern of five weeds in the central Great Plains. Weed Technol 10:744–749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2021) Gramoxone® SL 2.0 herbicide specimen label. https://www.syngenta-us.com/current-label/gramoxone_sl_2.0. Accessed: June 14, 2021Google Scholar
Barber, T, Norsworthy, J, Butts, T (2021) Arkansas Palmer amaranth found resistant to field rates of glufosinate. https://arkansascrops.uaex.edu/posts/weeds/palmer-amaranth.aspx. Accessed: June 14, 2021Google Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK (2012) Late-season seed production in arable weed communities: management implications. Weed Sci 60:325–334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biniak, B, Aldrich, R (1986) Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide applications. Weed Sci 34:256–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Aulakh, JS, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2015) Herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) in the United States—mechanisms of resistance, impact, and management. Pages 1–29 in Price A, Kelton J, Sarunaite L, eds. Herbicides: Agronomic Crops and Weed Biology. London: IntechOpen LimitedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Varanasi, VK, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2017) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska: confirmation, EPSPS gene amplification, and response to POST corn and soybean herbicides. Weed Technol 31:80–93 10.1614/WT-D-16-00109.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, RS, Slife, FW (1978) Effects of 2,4-D and dalapon on weed seed production and dormancy. Weed Sci 6:543–547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganie, ZA, Kaur, S, Jha, P, Kumar, V, Jhala, AJ (2018) Effect of late-season herbicide applications on inflorescence and seed production of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Technol 32:159–165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garetson, R, Singh, V, Singh, S, Dotray, P, Bagavathiannan, M (2019) Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas. Weed Technol 33:355–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, L, Schlegel, A (2018) Importance of post-wheat harvest weed control in dryland cropping systems. Kansas State University. Agronomy eUpdate Issue 703. https://webapp.agron.ksu.edu/agr_social/m_eu_article.throck?article_id=1902. Accessed: May 18, 2021Google Scholar
Hay, MM, Shoup, DE, Peterson, DE (2019) Herbicide options for control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in double-crop soybean. Weed Technol 33:106–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap (2021) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org/Summary/Species.aspx. Accessed: May 10, 2021Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 1:347–355 CrossRefGoogle 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 (2012) Influence of late-season herbicide applications on control, fecundity, and progeny fitness of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotypes from Arkansas. Weed Technol 26:807–812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Rana, N, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2014) Confirmation and control of triazine and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 28:28–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V, Jha, P (2015) Influence of herbicides applied postharvest in wheat stubble on control, fecundity, and progeny fitness of Kochia scoparia in the US Great Plains. Crop Prot 71:144–149 Google Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Boyer, G, Stahlman, PW (2019) Confirmation of 2,4-D resistance and identification of multiple resistance in a Kansas Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) population. Pest Manag Sci 75:2925–2933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Stahlman, PW (2020) Differential sensitivity of Kansas Palmer amaranth populations to multiple herbicides. Agron J 112:2152–2163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenssen, AW, Johnson, GD, Carlson, GR (2007) Cropping sequence and tillage system influence annual crop production and water use in semiarid Montana. Field Crops Res 100:32–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lollato, RP, Edwards, JT (2015) Maximum attainable wheat yield and resource-use efficiency in the southern Great Plains. Crop Sci 55:2863–2876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, GA, Westfall, DG (2004) Managing precipitation use in sustainable dryland agroecosystems. Ann Appl Biol 144:127–138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, SE, Oliver, LR (1997) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) seed production and viability as influenced by late-season postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Sci 45:497–501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2017) Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in grass crops, 447 pasture and turf in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National 448 Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017-Weed-Survey_Grass449crops.xlsx. Accessed: May 12, 2021Google Scholar
Vencill, WK, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS, Gaines, C, Westra, R (2008) Herbicide-resistance in the Amaranthaceae. J Plant Dis Prot (SI):41–44Google Scholar
Walker, ER, Oliver, LR (2008) Weed seed production as influenced by glyphosate applications at flowering across a weed complex. Weed Technol 22:318–325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar