Growth and Competition of Black Nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Weed Science ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Keeley ◽  
Robert J. Thullen

Black nightshade plants were controlled by hoeing in the same cotton plots each year (1982 to 1986) for 3 to 15 weeks after crop emergence to evaluate the influence of several black nightshade-free periods on cotton yield, reproduction of black nightshade, and longevity of weed seeds in soil. Similar information, although limited, was also collected for Palmer amaranth that escaped the initial herbicidal treatment each year. Except for 1982, black nightshade competing with cotton for the duration of the growing season in nonhoed plots severely reduced yields (60 to 100%), with greatest yield reductions (82 to 100%) occurring in 1983 and 1984 when 0.5 to 0.7 cm of rain fell within 10 days after cotton planting. When combined with cultivation, a 3-week nightshade-free period at cotton planting was of sufficient duration to protect cotton yields. Weed seed production for all hoed treatments was less than 1% of the nonhoed treatment, and after five consecutive cotton crops (1982 to 1986), the amount of both black nightshade and Palmer amaranth seeds in soil was similar for all hoed treatments. These populations were 60 to 80% and 95 to 97% less than beginning populations of black nightshade and Palmer amaranth in 1982, respectively. After 5 yr of continuous treatments, cotton was grown in 1987, with standard cultivation as the only method of weed control, to evaluate how the weed-free periods in 1982 to 1986 influenced weed seed populations in the soil and the resultant effect on weed competition and cotton yields. Reduction of cotton yields in 1987, in the absence of weed-free periods, indicated that black nightshade seed survival in soil appears to be sufficiently long for ample establishment of this weed to compete with cotton. Thus, fields will have to be kept weed free for greater than 5 yr to reduce black nightshade populations to a level that will not reduce cotton yields.

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly A. Barnett ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
Lawrence E. Steckel

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, especially GR Palmer amaranth, are very problematic for cotton growers in the Southeast and Midsouth regions of the United States. Glufosinate can control GR Palmer amaranth, and growers are transitioning to glufosinate-based systems. Palmer amaranth must be small for consistently effective control by glufosinate. Because this weed grows rapidly, growers are not always timely with applications. With widespread resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides, growers have few herbicide options to mix with glufosinate to improve control of larger weeds. In a field study using a WideStrike®cotton cultivar, we evaluated fluometuron at 140 to 1,120 g ai ha−1mixed with the ammonium salt of glufosinate at 485 g ae ha−1for control of GR Palmer amaranth 13 and 26 cm tall. Standard PRE- and POST-directed herbicides were included in the systems. Glufosinate alone injured the WideStrike® cotton less than 10%. Fluometuron increased injury up to 25% but did not adversely affect yield. Glufosinate controlled 13-cm Palmer amaranth at least 90%, and there was no improvement in weed control nor a cotton yield response to fluometuron mixed with glufosinate. Palmer amaranth 26 cm tall was controlled only 59% by glufosinate. Fluometuron mixed with glufosinate increased control of the larger weeds up to 28% and there was a trend for greater yields. However, delaying applications until weeds were 26 cm reduced yield 22% relative to timely application. Our results suggest fluometuron mixed with glufosinate may be of some benefit when attempting to control large Palmer amaranth. However, mixing fluometuron with glufosinate is not a substitute for a timely glufosinate application.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 758-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Cahoon ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Wesley J. Everman ◽  
Richard W. Seagroves ◽  
...  

Cotton growers rely heavily upon glufosinate and various residual herbicides applied preplant, PRE, and POST to control Palmer amaranth resistant to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Recently deregulated in the United States, cotton resistant to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate (B2XF cotton) offers a new platform for controlling herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth. A field experiment was conducted in North Carolina and Georgia to determine B2XF cotton tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate and to compare Palmer amaranth control by dicamba to a currently used, nondicamba program in both glufosinate- and glyphosate-based systems. Treatments consisted of glyphosate or glufosinate applied early POST (EPOST) and mid-POST (MPOST) in a factorial arrangement of treatments with seven dicamba options (no dicamba, PRE, EPOST, MPOST, PRE followed by [fb] EPOST, PRE fb MPOST, and EPOST fb MPOST) and a nondicamba standard. The nondicamba standard consisted of fomesafen PRE, pyrithiobac EPOST, and acetochlor MPOST. Dicamba caused no injury when applied PRE and only minor, transient injury when applied POST. At time of EPOST application, Palmer amaranth control by dicamba or fomesafen applied PRE, in combination with acetochlor, was similar and 13 to 17% greater than acetochlor alone. Dicamba was generally more effective on Palmer amaranth applied POST rather than PRE, and two applications were usually more effective than one. In glyphosate-based systems, greater Palmer amaranth control and cotton yield were obtained with dicamba applied EPOST, MPOST, or EPOST fb MPOST compared with the standard herbicides in North Carolina. In contrast, dicamba was no more effective than the standard herbicides in the glufosinate-based systems. In Georgia, dicamba was as effective as the standard herbicides in a glyphosate-based system only when dicamba was applied EPOST fb MPOST. In glufosinate-based systems in Georgia, dicamba was as effective as standard herbicides only when dicamba was applied twice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-503
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Randell ◽  
Phillip M. Roberts ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper

Abstract The direct effect of Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri Watson, on cotton growth and development is well documented, but its indirect effect through harboring feeding insects is less understood. Palmer amaranth emerged with cotton and remaining in the field for 30 days increased tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois), populations compared with a weed-free system. Weedy systems noted up to 49% more damaged terminals than weed-free systems, with cotton yield decreasing as damaged terminals increased at one of two locations. Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) populations were effectively controlled with Aeris® (Bayer, St. Louis, MO) seed treatment (imidacloprid + thiodicarb at 0.375 mg active ingredient per seed), but there was no correlation between thrips infestations and increasing damaged cotton terminals. However, Aeris seed treatment significantly reduced the occurrence of damaged cotton terminals. In a second experiment, Palmer amaranth infesting an area adjacent to a weed-free cotton field had maximum damaged terminals of 51% on the cotton row proximal to the weedy area, with the distal cotton row (44 m away) having 8% terminal damage. Cotton yield significantly decreased as damaged terminals increased. A final bioassay experiment further evaluated the influence of seed treatment on tarnished plant bug feeding impacting cotton seedlings. With Aeris seed treatment, tarnished plant bug mortality was 97%, compared with 37% for nontreated seed. Results suggest tarnished plant bug infestations increased where Palmer amaranth was present in cotton fields. Additionally, greater Palmer amaranth infestations led to an increase in damaged cotton terminals and lower yields.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 633-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. Vann ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
Charles W. Cahoon ◽  
Trace B. Buck ◽  
Matthew C. Askew ◽  
...  

Glufosinate controls glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, but growers struggle to make timely applications. XtendFlexTMcotton, resistant to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate, may provide growers an option to control larger weeds. Palmer amaranth control and cotton growth, yield, and fiber quality were evaluated in a rescue situation created by delaying the first POST herbicide application. Treatments consisted of two POST applications of dicamba plus glufosinate, separated by 14 d, with the first application timely (0-d delay) or delayed 7, 14, 21, or 28 d. All treatments included a layby application of diuron plus MSMA. Palmer amaranth, 14 d after first POST, was controlled 99, 96, 89, 75, and 73% with 0-, 7-, 14-, 21-, or 28-d delays, respectively. Control increased following the second application, and the weed was controlled at least 94% following layby. Cotton yield decreased linearly as first POST application was delayed, with yield reductions ranging from 8 to 42% with 7- to 28-d delays. Delays in first POST application delayed cotton maturity but did not affect fiber quality.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 617-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren M. Schwartz-Lazaro ◽  
Jeremy K. Green ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy

Harvest weed seed control is an alternative non-chemical approach to weed management that targets escaped weed seeds at the time of crop harvest. Relatively little is known on how these methods will work on species in the US. Two of the most prominent weeds in soybean production in the midsouthern US are Palmer amaranth and barnyardgrass. Typically, when crop harvesting occurs the weed seed has already either shattered or is taken into the combine and may be redistributed in the soil seedbank. This causes further weed seed spread and may contribute to the addition of resistant seeds in the seedbank. There is little research on how much seed is retained on different weed species at or beyond harvest time. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the percentage of total Palmer amaranth and barnyardgrass seed production that was retained on the plant during delayed soybean harvest. Retained seed over time was similar between 2015 and 2016, but was significantly different between years for only Palmer amaranth. Seed retention did not differ between years for either weed species. Palmer amaranth and barnyardgrass retained 98 and 41% of their seed at soybean maturity and 95 and 32% of their seed one month after soybean maturity, respectively. Thus, this research indicates that if there are escaped Palmer amaranth plants and soybean is harvested in a timely manner, most seed will enter the combine and offer potential for capture or destruction of these seeds using harvest weed seed control tactics. While there would be some benefit to using HWSC for barnyardgrass, the utility of this practice on mitigating herbicide resistance would be less pronounced than that of Palmer amaranth because of the reduced seed retention or early seed shatter.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 20-23
Author(s):  
O. Ivashchenko ◽  
O. Ivashchenko

Aim. Studying of black nightshade young plants’ response to the induced mechanical stresses. Methods. Researches conducted in small plot fi eld experiments. Results. Change of sensitivity level of Solanum nigrum L. plants depending on phases of their development at the moment of damage of elevated parts has been proven. Owing to loss of the surface capable to photosynthesis, there is an essential decrease in volumes of photosynthesis at plants of weed survived and their possibilities of ontogeny passage. The deep induced dis- stresses reduce biological effi ciency of plants, their ability to accumulate weight and to form seeds and even lead them to death. Conclusions. The defi ned principles of response of weed plants to the induced mechanical dis-stresses are can be used for working out and ecological receptions of crops protection from weeds.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Levi D. Moore ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
Ramon G. Leon ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
...  

Abstract Field studies were conducted to evaluate linuron for POST control of Palmer amaranth in sweetpotato to minimize reliance on protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides. Treatments were arranged in a two by four factorial where the first factor consisted of two rates of linuron (420 and 700 g ai ha−1), and the second factor consisted of linuron applied alone or in combinations of linuron plus a nonionic surfactant (NIS) (0.5% v/v), linuron plus S-metolachlor (800 g ai ha−1), or linuron plus NIS plus S-metolachlor. In addition, S-metolachlor alone and nontreated weedy and weed-free checks were included for comparison. Treatments were applied to ‘Covington’ sweetpotato 8 d after transplanting (DAP). S-metolachlor alone provided poor Palmer amaranth control because emergence had occurred at applications. All treatments that included linuron resulted in at least 98 and 91% Palmer amaranth control 1 and 2 wk after treatment (WAT), respectively. Including NIS with linuron did not increase Palmer amaranth control compared to linuron alone, but increased sweetpotato injury and subsequently decreased total sweetpotato yield by 25%. Including S-metolachlor with linuron resulted in the greatest Palmer amaranth control 4 WAT, but increased crop foliar injury to 36% 1 WAT compared to 17% foliar injury from linuron alone. Marketable and total sweetpotato yield was similar between linuron alone and linuron plus S-metolachlor or S-metolachlor plus NIS treatments, though all treatments resulted in at least 39% less total yield than the weed-free check resulting from herbicide injury and/or Palmer amaranth competition. Because of the excellent POST Palmer amaranth control from linuron 1 WAT, a system including linuron applied 7 DAP followed by S-metolachlor applied 14 DAP could help to extend residual Palmer amaranth control further into the critical period of weed control while minimizing sweetpotato injury.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Clint W. Beiermann ◽  
Cody F. Creech ◽  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Robert Harveson ◽  
...  

Abstract A prepackaged mixture of desmedipham + phenmedipham was previously labeled for control of Amaranthus spp. in sugarbeet. Currently, there are no effective POST herbicide options to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet growers are interested in using desmedipham + phenmedipham to control escaped Palmer amaranth. In 2019, a greenhouse experiment was initiated near Scottsbluff, NE, to determine the selectivity of desmedipham and phenmedipham between Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet. Three populations of Palmer amaranth and four sugarbeet hybrids were evaluated. Herbicide treatments consisted of desmedipham and phenmedipham applied singly or as mixtures at an equivalent rate. Herbicides were applied when Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet were at the cotyledon stage, or two true-leaf sugarbeet stage and when Palmer amaranth was 7 cm tall. The selectivity indices for desmedipham, phenmedipham, and desmedipham + phenmedipham were 1.61, 2.47, and 3.05, respectively, at the cotyledon stage. At the two true-leaf application stage, the highest rates of desmedipham and phenmedipham were associated with low mortality rates in sugarbeet, resulting in a failed response of death. The highest rates of desmedipham + phenmedipham caused a death response of sugarbeet; the selectivity index was 2.15. Desmedipham treatments resulted in lower LD50 estimates for Palmer amaranth compared to phenmedipham, indicating that desmedipham can provide greater levels of control for Palmer amaranth. However, desmedipham also caused greater injury in sugarbeet, producing lower LD50 estimates compared to phenmedipham. Desmedipham + phenmedipham provided 90% or greater control of cotyledon-size Palmer amaranth at a labeled rate but also caused high levels of sugarbeet injury. Neither desmedipham, phenmedipham, nor desmedipham + phenmedipham was able to control 7-cm tall Palmer amaranth at previously labeled rates. Results indicate that desmedipham + phenmedipham can only control Palmer amaranth if applied at the cotyledon stage and a high level of sugarbeet injury is acceptable.


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 838-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis R. Braswell ◽  
Charles W. Cahoon ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Richard W. Seagroves

Flumioxazin and fomesafen are commonly used to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in cotton and other crops, thus increasing risk to select for Palmer amaranth biotypes resistant to protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors. A field experiment was conducted to determine the potential for fluridone and acetochlor to substitute for soil-applied PPO inhibitors in a Palmer amaranth management system with glufosinate applied twice POST and diuron plus MSMA POST-directed in conservation tillage cotton. Fluridone and flumioxazin applied preplant 23 to 34 d prior to planting were similarly effective. Fluridone and acetochlor plus diuron applied PRE controlled Palmer amaranth as well as fomesafen plus diuron PRE. All systems with preplant and PRE herbicides followed by glufosinate POST and diuron plus MSMA layby controlled Palmer amaranth well. Cotton yield did not differ among herbicide treatments. This research demonstrates that fluridone and acetochlor can substitute for soil-applied PPO-inhibiting herbicides in management systems for Palmer amaranth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document