Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:20:37.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in 2,4-D–, glufosinate-, and glyphosate-resistant soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2020

Chandrima Shyam ,
Parminder S. Chahal ,
Amit J. Jhala Open the ORCID record for Amit J. Jhala [Opens in a new window]  and
Mithila Jugulam Open the ORCID record for Mithila Jugulam [Opens in a new window]
Chandrima Shyam
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Parminder S. Chahal
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Amit J. Jhala*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Mithila Jugulam*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Mithila Jugulam, Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS66502. Email: mithila@ksu.edu or Amit J. Jhala, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915. Email: Amit.Jhala@unl.edu
Author for correspondence: Mithila Jugulam, Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS66502. Email: mithila@ksu.edu or Amit J. Jhala, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915. Email: Amit.Jhala@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth is a problematic, annual broadleaf weed in soybean production fields in Nebraska and many other states in the United States. Soybean resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate (Enlist E3TM) has been developed and was first grown commercially in 2019. The objectives of this research were to evaluate the effect of herbicide programs applied PRE, PRE followed by (fb) late-POST (LPOST), and early-POST (EPOST) fb LPOST on GR Palmer amaranth control, density, and biomass reduction, soybean injury, and yield. Field experiments were conducted near Carleton, NE, in 2018, and 2019 in a grower’s field infested with GR Palmer amaranth in 2,4-D–, glyphosate-, and glufosinate-resistant soybean. Sulfentrazone + cloransulam-methyl, imazethapyr + saflufenacil + pyroxasulfone, and chlorimuron ethyl + flumioxazin + metribuzin applied PRE provided 84% to 97% control of GR Palmer amaranth compared with the nontreated control 14 d after PRE. Averaged across herbicide programs, PRE fb 2,4-D and/or glufosinate, and sequential application of 2,4-D or glufosinate applied EPOST fb LPOST resulted in 92% and 88% control of GR Palmer amaranth, respectively, compared with 62% control with PRE-only programs 14 d after LPOST. Reductions in Palmer amaranth biomass followed the same trend; however, Palmer amaranth density was reduced 98% in EPOST fb LPOST programs compared with 91% reduction in PRE fb LPOST and 76% reduction in PRE-only programs. PRE fb LPOST and EPOST fb LPOST programs resulted in an average soybean yield of 4,478 and 4,706 kg ha−1, respectively, compared with 3,043 kg ha−1 in PRE-only programs. Herbicide programs evaluated in this study resulted in no soybean injury. The results of this research illustrate that herbicide programs are available for the management of GR Palmer amaranth in 2,4-D–, glyphosate-, and glufosinate-resistant soybean.

Keywords

2,4-D chlorimuron-ethylcloransulam-methylflumioxazinglufosinateglyphosateimazethapyrmetribuzinpyroxasulfonesaflufenacilsulfentrazonePalmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. WatsonsoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.Biomass reductiondensity reductionearly-POST followed by late-POSTPRE followed by late-POSTsoybean yield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 136 - 143
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. 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: Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri

References

Aulakh, JS, Jhala, AJ (2015) Comparison of glufosinate-based herbicide programs for broad-spectrum weed control in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:419–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, KA, Culpepper, SA, York, AC, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth control by glufosinate plus flometuron applied postemergence to WideStrike® cotton. Weed Technol 27:291–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ (2011) Herbicide-resistant weed management: focus on glyphosate. Pest Manag Sci 67:1037–1048 Google ScholarPubMed
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, R (1990) The shikimate pathway—a metabolic tree with many branches. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 125:307–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernards, ML, Crespo, RJ, Kruger, GR, Gaussoin, RE, Tranel, PJ (2012) A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population resistant to 2,4-D. Weed Sci 60:379–384 Google 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 spp.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean in the Midwest and Mid-South. Weed Technol 30:355–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Irmak, S, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2018) Evaluating effect of degree of water stress on growth and fecundity of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) using soil moisture sensors. Weed Sci 66:738–745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Jhala, AJ (2015) Herbicide programs for control of glyphosate-resistant volunteer corn in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:431–443 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of weed height and glufosinate plus 2,4-D combinations on weed control in soybean with resistance to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:271–280 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominguez-Valenzuel, JA, Gherekhloo, J, Fernández-Moreno, PT, Cruz-Hipolito, HE, Alcántara-de la Cruz, R, Eduardo Sánchez-González, E, De Prado, R (2017) First confirmation and characterization of target and non-target site resistance to glyphosate in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Mexico. Plant Physiol Bioch 115:212–218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1983) Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran Desert summer annual. Oecologia 57:107–112 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, CM, Strom, SA, Riechers, DE, Davis, AS, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG (2019) Characterization of a waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population from Illinois resistant to herbicides from five site-of-action groups. Weed Technol 33:400–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2007) Weed control and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to preplant applications of dicamba, 2,4- D, and diflufenzopyr plus dicamba. Weed Technol 21:506–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueiredo, MR, Leibhart, LJ, Reicher, ZJ, Tranel, PJ, Nissen, SJ, Westra, P, Bernards, ML, Kruger, GR, Gaines, TA, Jugulam, M (2018) Metabolism of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid contributes to resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population. Pest Manag Sci 74(10):2356–2362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, TA, Zhang, W, Wang, D, Bukun, B, Chisholm, ST, Shaner, DL, Nissen, SJ, Patzoldt, WL, Tranel, PJ, Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Webster, TM, Vencil, WK, Sammons, RD, Jiang, J, Preston, C, Leach, JE, Westra, P (2010) Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri . Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 107:1029–1034 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganie, ZA, Jhala, AJ (2017) Interaction of 2,4-D or dicamba with glufosinate for control of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in glufosinate-resistant maize (Zea mays L.). Front Plant Sci 8:1207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JM (2012) The benefits of herbicide-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 68:1323-1331 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, JM, Owen, MD (2011) Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J Agric Food Chem 59:5819–5829 Google ScholarPubMed
Grey, TL, Cutts, G III, Newsome, LJ, Newell, SH III (2013) Comparison of pyroxasulfone to soil residual herbicides for glyphosate resistant palmer amaranth control in glyphosate resistant soybean. Crop Manag 12:1–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Buhler, DG, Stoltenberg, DE (1999) Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2020) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: March 27, 2020Google Scholar
Heap, I, Duke, SO (2018) Overview of glyphosate-resistant weeds worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 74:1040–1049 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[HPRCC] High Plains Regional Climate Center (2020) [Homepage] https://hprcc.unl.edu/. Accessed: June 27, 2020Google Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Sarangi, D, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 31:32–45 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
Johnson, G, Breitenbach, F, Behnken, L, Miller, R, Hoverstad, T, Gunsolus, J (2012) Comparison of herbicide tactics to minimize species shifts and selection pressure in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 26:189–194 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 Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Pavlovic, P, Osipitan, OA, Barnes, ER, Beiermann, C, Oliveira, MC, Lawrence, N, Scott, JE, Jhala, AJ (2019) Critical time for weed removal in glyphosate-resistant soybean as influenced by preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 33:393–399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, DH, Molin, WT, Saski, CA, Jiang, J, Putta, K, Jugulam, M, Friebe, B, Gill, BS (2018) Extra-chromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) based amplification and transmission of herbicide resistance in crop weed Amaranthus palmeri . Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 115:3332–3337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK, Mauromoustakos, A (2019) Effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) establishment time and distance from the crop row on biological and phenological characteristics of the weed: implications on soybean yield. Weed Sci 67:126–135 CrossRefGoogle 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
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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, MR, Norsworthy, JK (2016) Evaluation of herbicide programs for use in a 2,4-D–resistant soybean technology for control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Technol 30:366–376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK, Reddy, KN, Kroger, CH, Poston, DH, Rimando, AM, Duke, SO, Bond, JA, Ribeiro, DN (2012) Multiple resistance to glyphosate and pyrithiobac in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Mississippi and response to flumiclorac. Weed Sci 60:179–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2016) Integrating herbicide programs with harvest weed seed control and other fall management practices for the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 64:540–550 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Nandula, VK (2012) Herbicide resistant crops: history, development and current technologies. Indian J Agron 57:1–7 Google Scholar
Sarangi, D, Jhala, AJ (2019) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in no-tillage conventional (non–genetically engineered) soybean using overlapping residual herbicide programs. Weed Technol 33:95–105 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
Shergill, LS, Barlow, BR, Bish, MD, Bradley, KW (2018) Investigations of 2,4-D and multiple herbicide resistance in a Missouri waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population. Weed Sci 66:386–394 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shyam, C, Jhala, AJ, Kruger, G, Jugulam, M (2019) Rapid metabolism increases the level of 2,4-D resistance at high temperature in common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Sci Rep 9:16695 Google Scholar
Steckel, GJ, Wax, LM, Simmons, FW, Phillips, WH II (1997) Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol 11:484–488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2019) Recent trends in GE adoption. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx. Accessed: June 27, 2020Google Scholar
Van Acker, R, Swanton, C, Weise, S (1993) The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194–200 Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2019) Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits & vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2019-Weed-Survey_broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: June 27, 2020Google 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