Control of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Regrowth Following Failed Applications of Glufosinate and Fomesafen

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Jesse A. Haarmann ◽  
Bryan G. Young ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Bare Ground ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Ground Field ◽  
Initial Application ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Herbicide Treatment ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

Abstract Rapid vegetative growth and adverse application conditions are common factors leading to the failure of postemergence herbicides on Palmer amaranth. A sequential herbicide application, or respray, is often necessary to control weeds that have survived the initial herbicide application to protect crop yield and minimize weed seed production. The optimum timing after the initial application and the most effective herbicide for control of Palmer amaranth has not been characterized. The objectives of these experiments were to determine the optimum herbicide for treating Palmer amaranth regrowth, the optimum timing for each of those herbicides, and how the initial failed herbicide might affect efficacy of a second herbicide application. Bare ground field experiments were performed in 2017 and 2018 in which glufosinate or fomesafen herbicide failure was induced on Palmer amaranth plants that were 30 cm in height. Respray treatments of glufosinate, fomesafen, lactofen, 2,4-D, and dicamba were applied once at timings of 4 to 5 days, 7 days, or 11 days after the initial spray application. Nearly all herbicide treatment and timing combinations increased control by at least 13 percentage points compared to no respray herbicide treatment. Regardless of initial herbicide, glufosinate applied as a respray treatment was the most consistent and efficacious with up to 97% control. The specific herbicide used in the second application impacted final weed control more so than timing of the respray application. For instance, control by glufosinate respray treatments was 10 to 18 percentage points greater than control from lactofen respray treatments, whereas control decreased by 3 percentage points when respray applications of any herbicide were made 11 days after initial application of glufosinate compared to 4 to 5 and 7 days after initial application of glufosinate. In the event of failure to control Palmer amaranth with glufosinate or fomesafen, glufosinate should be applied in order to maximize control.

Controlling Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Cotton with Resistance to Glyphosate, 2,4-D, and Glufosinate

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rand M. Merchant ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper ◽  
Peter M. Eure ◽  
John S. Richburg ◽  
L. Bo Braxton
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Seed Cotton ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Initial Application ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
Consistent Performance ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Current Systems

Field experiments were conducted in Macon County, Georgia, during 2010 and 2011 to determine the impact of new herbicide-resistant cotton and respective herbicide systems on the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Sequential POST applications of 2,4-D or glufosinate followed by diuron plus MSMA directed at layby (late POST-directed) controlled Palmer amaranth 62 to 79% and 46 to 49% at harvest when the initial application was made to 8- or 18–cm-tall Palmer amaranth, in separate trials, respectively. Mixtures of glufosinate plus 2,4-D applied sequentially followed by the layby controlled Palmer amaranth 95 to 97% regardless of Palmer amaranth height. Mixing glyphosate with 2,4-D improved control beyond that observed with 2,4-D alone, but control was still only 79 to 86% at harvest depending on 2,4-D rate. Sequential applications of glyphosate plus 2,4-D controlled Palmer amaranth 95 to 96% following the use of either pendimethalin or fomesafen. Seed cotton yield was at least 30% higher with 2,4-D plus glufosinate systems compared to systems with either herbicide alone. The addition of pendimethalin and/or fomesafen PRE did not improve Palmer amaranth control or yields when glufosinate plus 2,4-D were applied sequentially followed by the layby. The addition of these residual herbicides improved at harvest control (87 to 96%) when followed by sequential applications of 2,4-D or 2,4-D plus glyphosate; yields from these systems were similar to those with glufosinate plus 2,4-D. Comparison of 2,4-D and 2,4-DB treatments confirmed that 2,4-D is a more effective option for the control of Palmer amaranth. Results from these experiments suggest cotton with resistance to glufosinate, glyphosate, and 2,4-D will improve Palmer amaranth management. At-plant residual herbicides should be recommended for consistent performance of all 2,4-D systems across environments, although cotton with resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate, and 2,4-D will allow greater flexibility in selecting PRE herbicide(s), which should reduce input costs, carryover concerns, and crop injury when compared to current systems.

scholarly journals African star grass response to postemergence herbicides

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Magno Brighenti ◽  
Flávio Rodrigo Gandolfi Benites ◽  
Fausto Souza Sobrinho
Keyword(s):  
Nonionic Surfactant ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Crop Management ◽  
Mineral Oil ◽  
Dry Matter Yield ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Cynodon Nlemfuensis ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

ABSTRACT Cynodon nlemfuensis Vanderyst, commonly called African star grass, is excellent forage in pasture formation and herd feeding. However, little information is available regarding weed management in areas of star grasses. Two field experiments were carried out in 2017 and 2018 to evaluate the response of African star grass to postemergence herbicides. The treatments applied were as follows: 2,4-D (1,340.0 g ae ha-1); 2,4-D + picloram (720.0 +192.0 g ae ha-1 + 0.3% v/v nonionic surfactant); fluroxypyr + picloram (80.0 + 80.0 g ae ha-1 + 0.3% v/v mineral oil); fluroxypyr + aminopyralid (160.0 + 80.0 g ae ha-1 + 0.3% v/v mineral oil); fluroxypyr + triclopyr (320.0 + 960.0 g ae ha-1 + 0.3% v/v mineral oil); bentazon (720.0 g ai ha-1 + 0.5% v/v mineral oil); imazapyr (25.0 g ai ha-1); monosodium methyl arsenate (MSMA) (1,440.0 g ai ha-1 + 0.1% v/v nonionic surfactant); atrazine + S-metolachlor (1,480.0 + 1,160.0 g ai ha-1); atrazine + tembotrione (1,000.0 + 100.8 g ai ha-1 + 0.3% v/v mineral oil) and a control without herbicide application. The most phytotoxic treatments for the African star grass plants were fluroxypyr + amininopyralid, fluroxypyr + triclopyr and atrazine + tembotrione. The dry matter yield of star grass plants was not reduced by the applications of 2,4-D, 2,4-D + picloram, bentazon, imazapyr, MSMA and atrazine + S-metolachlor. These herbicides can be considered potential practices in African star grass crop management.

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

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Chandrima Shyam ◽  
Parminder S. Chahal ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Mithila Jugulam
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Chlorimuron Ethyl ◽  
Density And Biomass ◽  
Herbicide Programs ◽  
Biomass Reduction

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of POST-Harvest Herbicide Applications for Seed Prevention of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney D. Crow ◽  
Lawrence E. Steckel ◽  
Robert M. Hayes ◽  
Thomas C. Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Wheat Grain ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Post Harvest ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
Residual Herbicide

Recent increases in the prevalence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth mandate that new control strategies be developed to optimize weed control and crop performance. A field study was conducted in 2012 and 2013 in Jackson, TN, and in 2013 in Knoxville, TN, to evaluate POST weed management programs applied after harvest (POST-harvest) for prevention of seed production from GR Palmer amaranth and to evaluate herbicide carryover to winter wheat. Treatments were applied POST-harvest to corn stubble, with three applications followed by a PRE herbicide applied at wheat planting. Paraquat alone or mixed withS-metolachlor controlled 91% of existing Palmer amaranth 14 d after treatment but did not control regrowth. Paraquat tank-mixed with a residual herbicide of metribuzin, pyroxasulfone, saflufenacil, flumioxazin, pyroxasulfone plus flumioxazin, or pyroxasulfone plus fluthiacet improved control of regrowth or new emergence compared with paraquat alone. All residual herbicide treatments provided similar GR Palmer amaranth control. Through implementation of POST-harvest herbicide applications, the addition of 1,200 seed m−2or approximately 12 million seed ha−1to the soil seedbank was prevented. Overall, the addition of a residual herbicide provided only 4 to 7% more GR Palmer amaranth control than paraquat alone. Wheat injury was evident (< 10%) in 2012 from the PRE applications, but not in 2013. Wheat grain yield was not adversely affected by any herbicide application.

Evaluation of Herbicide Programs for Use in a 2,4-D–Resistant Soybean Technology for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ryan Miller ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
High Level ◽  
Herbicide Programs

Two separate field experiments were conducted over a 2-yr period in Fayetteville, AR, during 2012 and 2013 to (1) evaluate POST herbicide programs utilizing a premixture of dimethylamine (DMA) salt of glyphosate + choline salt of 2,4-D in a soybean line resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate and (2) determine efficacy of herbicide programs that begin with PRE residual herbicides followed by POST applications of 2,4-D choline + glyphosate DMA on glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. In the first experiment, POST applications alone that incorporated the use of residual herbicides with the glyphosate + 2,4-D premixture provided 93 to 99% control of Palmer amaranth at the end of the season. In the second experiment, the use of flumioxazin, flumioxazin + chlorimuron methyl, S-metolachlor + fomesafen, or sulfentrazone + chloransulam applied PRE provided 94 to 98% early-season Palmer amaranth control. Early-season control helped maintain a high level of Palmer amaranth control throughout the growing season, in turn resulting in fewer reproductive Palmer amaranth plants present at soybean harvest compared to most other treatments. Although no differences in soybean yield were observed among treated plots, it was evident that herbicide programs should begin with PRE residual herbicides followed by POST applications of glyphosate + 2,4-D mixed with residual herbicides to minimize late-season escapes and reduce the likelihood of contributions to the soil seedbank. Dependent upon management decisions, the best stewardship of this technology will likely rely on the use multiple effective mechanisms of action incorporated into a fully integrated weed management system.

Control of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) regrowth after failed applications of glufosinate or fomesafen

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 794-800
Author(s):  
Jesse A. Haarmann ◽  
Bryan G. Young ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Seed Production ◽  
Optimum Combination ◽  
Bare Ground ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Previous Injury ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Initial Application ◽  
Site Of Action ◽  
Amaranthus Tuberculatus

AbstractFoliar herbicide applications to waterhemp can result in inadequate control, leading to subsequent regrowth that often necessitates a second herbicide application to prevent crop interference and seed production. The most effective herbicides and application timings are unknown in situations where waterhemp has regrown from previous injury, such as failed applications of glufosinate or fomesafen. The objective of this research was to determine the optimum combination of herbicide and time from the first failed herbicide application to a sequential herbicide application for control of waterhemp regrowth. Reduced rates of either glufosinate or fomesafen were applied to 30-cm waterhemp plants to mimic failure of the initial herbicide application in separate bare-ground experiments. Respray treatments of glufosinate, fomesafen, lactofen, 2,4-D, or dicamba were applied 3, 7, or 11 d after the initial application. Glufosinate and fomesafen as respray treatments resulted in 90% to 100% control of waterhemp regardless of application timing following a failed glufosinate application. After a failed application of fomesafen, applying glufosinate or 2,4-D resulted in 87% to 99% control of waterhemp. Waterhemp control with fomesafen and lactofen was 13% to 21% greater, respectively, when those treatments followed glufosinate compared with fomesafen as the initial herbicides. On the basis of these results, glufosinate and fomesafen should be used for respray situations after inadequate control from glufosinate; and 2,4-D or glufosinate should be used for respray situations following inadequate control from fomesafen where crop tolerance and herbicide product labels allow. Although glufosinate followed by glufosinate was very effective for controlling waterhemp regrowth, caution should be exercised to avoid sequential application of herbicide with the same site of action.

Weed Control and Crop Response to Glufosinate Applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF’ Cotton

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Stanley Culpepper ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
Phillip Roberts ◽  
Jared R. Whitaker
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Selectable Marker ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Seed Cotton ◽  
Glufosinate Ammonium ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Pitted Morningglory ◽  
Fourth Experiment

Field experiments were conducted in Georgia to evaluate weed control and crop tolerance with glufosinate applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF®’ cotton. This glyphosate-resistant cotton also contains a gene, used as a selectable marker, for glufosinate resistance. Three experiments were maintained weed-free and focused on crop tolerance; a fourth experiment focused on control of pitted morningglory and glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. In two experiments, PHY 485 WRF cotton was visibly injured 15 and 20% or less by glufosinate ammonium salt at 430 and 860 g ae/ha, respectively, applied POST two or three times. In a third experiment, glufosinate at 550 g/ha injured cotton up to 36%. Pyrithiobac or glyphosate mixed with glufosinate did not increase injury compared to glufosinate applied alone;S-metolachlor mixed with glufosinate increased injury by six to seven percentage points. Cotton injury was not detectable 14 to 21 d after glufosinate application, and cotton yields were not reduced by glufosinate or glufosinate mixtures. A program of pendimethalin PRE, glyphosate applied POST twice, and diuron plus MSMA POST-directed controlled glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth only 17% late in the season.S-metolachlor included with the initial glyphosate application did not increase control, and pyrithiobac increased late-season control by only 13 percentage points. Palmer amaranth was controlled 90% or more when glufosinate replaced glyphosate in the aforementioned system. Pitted morningglory was controlled 99% by all glufosinate programs and mixtures of glyphosate plus pyrithiobac. Seed cotton yields with glufosinate-based systems were at least 3.3 times greater than yields with glyphosate-based systems because of differences in control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) Control in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with Pyrithiobac

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Dotray ◽  
J. Wayne Keeling ◽  
C. Gary Henniger ◽  
John R. Abernathy
Keyword(s):  
Gossypium Hirsutum ◽  
Environmental Conditions ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
High Plains ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Southern High Plains ◽  
Devil’S Claw

Field experiments conducted in 1991, 1992, and 1993 evaluated Palmer amaranth and devil's-claw control and cotton injury with pyrithiobac applied PPI, PRE, or POST. Pyrithiobac at 36 or 71 g ae/ha applied PPI, PRE, or POST did not injure cotton. Pyrithiobac at 140 g/ha applied PPI or PRE injured cotton 9 to 11% 6 wk after treatment. Cotton recovered and no injury was observed 12 wk after treatment. Pyrithiobac applied PPI and PRE at 71 g/ha controlled Palmer amaranth at least 97% 6 wk after treatment. Palmer amaranth control with pyrithiobac applied POST was more variable and influenced by environmental conditions. Palmer amaranth control with 71 g/ha of pyrithiobac exceeded that with 36 g/ha. Devil's-claw control with pyrithiobac was better with POST applications than PPI or PRE applications. Pyrithiobac applied POST at 140 g/ha controlled devil's-claw 83–97%. These studies indicate that pyrithiobac can effectively control Palmer amaranth and devil's-claw in cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains when applied at appropriate rates and timings.

Effect of Delayed Dicamba plus Glufosinate Application on Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control and XtendFlex™ Cotton Yield

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 633-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. Vann ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
Charles W. Cahoon ◽  
Trace B. Buck ◽  
Matthew C. Askew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fiber Quality ◽  
Growth Yield ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Herbicide Application

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document