Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T08:38:48.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Smooth Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) by Postemergence Herbicides in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Billy J. Gossett  and
Joe E. Toler
Billy J. Gossett*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Experiment Station Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0359
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bgsstt@clemson.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in South Carolina to evaluate the herbicides acifluorfen, chlorimuron, and imazaquin for control of Palmer amaranth and smooth pigweed in soybean, when applied 3 wk after weed emergence. Palmer amaranth was more difficult to control than smooth pigweed. Compared to untreated controls, acifluorfen, chlorimuron, and imazaquin reduced Palmer amaranth and smooth pigweed biomass 78 and 96%, 80 and 98%, and 82 and 99% at 30 d after treatment (DAT), 60 DAT, and at soybean harvest, respectively. The high rate (140 g/ha) of imazaquin provided greater control of Palmer amaranth than other herbicide treatments at soybean harvest. Except for the 140 g/ha rate of imazaquin, inadequate control of Palmer amaranth resulted in lower soybean seed yields for all herbicide treatments than the weed-free control. However, all herbicides controlled smooth pigweed to provide soybean seed yields similar to the weed-free control.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidchlorimuron, 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methyethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide efficacyAMAPAAMACHDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 165 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1981. Identification of triazine-resistant Amaranthus spp. Weed Sci. 29:345–348.Google Scholar
Anonymous. Undated. Weeds of the Southern United States. Athens, GA: University of Georgia College Agriculture. 45 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1970. Selected Weeds of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Agricultural Handb. 336. 463 p.Google Scholar
Dillon, T. L., Baldwin, F. L., and Becton, C. M. 1989. Palmer amaranth control on sandy soils in northeast Arkansas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:113.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:290–304.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1997. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:231.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1985. Weed Identification Guide. Southern Weed Science Society 3 AMAPA.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Crop Sci. 11:929–931.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. 1952. The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. Lancaster, PA: The New York Botanical Garden and Lancaster Press. 655 p.Google Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:587–591.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plunkett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds—Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Mathis, W. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Control of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28:409–415.Google Scholar
McClelland, M. R., Oliver, L. R., Mathis, W. D., and Frans, R. E. 1978. Responses of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species to bentazon. Weed Sci. 26:459–464.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C. 1992. Documentation of Weed Infestations in South Carolina. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 16. Memphis, TN: Cotton Weed Science Research Conf. 1296 p.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1955. Revision of the dioecious amaranths. Madroño 13:5–46.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1967. The grain amaranths and their relatives: a revised taxonomic and geographic survey. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 54:103–137.Google Scholar
Stucky, J. M., Monaco, T. J., and Worsham, A. D. 1980. Identifying seedling and Mature Weeds. Raleigh: The North Carolina Agricultural Research Service and Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina Stale University, Bull. 461. 197 p.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1979. Observations on the weedy amaranths. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 34:47–48.Google Scholar
Weed Loss Committee, D. C. Bridges, ed. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in Canada and the United Stales 1992. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar