Smutgrass is an invasive weed species that can quickly outcompete bahiagrass because of its aggressive growth, prolific seed production, and rhizomatous nature. Total renovation of bahiagrass pastures or hayfields is generally not a feasible or economically viable option for most producers. Therefore, controlling the continual spread of smutgrass will require an integrated weed management (IWM) plan that incorporates multiple strategies. The objective of this study was to test the interactions of herbicides and fertilizers on smutgrass control in bahiagrass and determine the most efficacious and economical IWM plan for low-input bahiagrass systems. This research was conducted on a mixture of ‘Tifton 9’ and ‘Pensacola’ bahiagrass at the Alapaha Beef Station in Alapaha, GA. The study design was a randomized complete block with a three-by-four factorial treatment arrangement with six replications. Fertility treatments included 56 kg N ha–1 (ammonium nitrate, 34% N) + 56 kg K2O ha–1, 56 kg N ha–1, and an unfertilized control. Smutgrass was reduced to <15% ground coverage when a postemergent herbicide was applied. The addition of a preemergent herbicide and/or fertilizer further reduced the coverage of smutgrass (P < 0.01). As smutgrass declined, the bahiagrass ground coverage increased; other vegetation and dead material did not differ by treatment. Generally, herbage accumulation and crude protein were only affected following the second N application (P < 0.01). Treatments that included preemergent (indaziflam) and postemergent (hexazinone) herbicides in addition to N and K2O resulted in an improved bahiagrass stand as timely weed suppression removed competition, while fertilizer provided essential nutrients for optimum growth to fill in the gaps. Combining herbicide and fertilizer is a more economical option for producers when compared to a complete bahiagrass renovation.

A field experiment was conducted in 2019 and 2020 that included six site-years and four locations in Arkansas to determine the optimal sequence and timing of dicamba and glufosinate applications when applied alone, sequentially, or in combination to control Palmer amaranth by size: labeled (<10 cm height) and non-labeled (13 to 25 cm height). Single applications of dicamba, glufosinate, and dicamba plus glufosinate (not labeled) resulted in less than 80% Palmer amaranth control, regardless of weed size. The mixture of dicamba plus glufosinate was antagonistic for Palmer amaranth control and percent mortality. Sequential applications, averaged over all time intervals and herbicides, improved the percentage of Palmer amaranth control 11 to 17 percentage points over a single application, regardless of weed size at application 28 d after final application (DAFA). Palmer amaranth control with glufosinate followed by (fb) glufosinate and dicamba fb dicamba, pending weed size, were optimized at intervals of 7 d, and 14 to 21 d, respectively. Because single site of action (SOA) postemergence herbicide systems increase the likelihood of the development of resistant biotypes and are not a best management practice (BMP) in that regard; sequential applications involving both dicamba and glufosinate were more effective. Furthermore, the sequence of application mattered with a preference for applying dicamba first. Dicamba fb glufosinate at a 14-d interval was profit-maximizing and the only herbicide treatment that resulted in 100% weed control when size was <10 cm. For larger weed sizes, economic analysis revealed that dicamba fb dicamba performed better than dicamba fb glufosinate when no penalty was assigned for using a single SOA. This resulted in greater yield loss risk and soil weed seed bank in comparison to timelier weed control with the smaller weed size. Hence, timely weed control and two SOAs to control Palmer amaranth are recommended as BMPs that reduce producer risk.