Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthaceae) and At-Plant Insecticide Impacts on Tarnished Plant Bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) and Injury to Seedling Cotton Terminals

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-503
Author(s):  
Taylor M. Randell ◽  
Phillip M. Roberts ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper
Keyword(s):  
Growth And Development ◽  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Cotton Field ◽  
Lygus Lineolaris ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Tarnished Plant Bug ◽  
Free System ◽  
Bioassay Experiment

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.

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control by Glufosinate plus Fluometuron Applied Postemergence to WideStrike®Cotton

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly A. Barnett ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
Lawrence E. Steckel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Acetolactate Synthase ◽  
The United States ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Cotton Cultivar

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.

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Management in Dicamba-Resistant Cotton

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 758-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Cahoon ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Wesley J. Everman ◽  
Richard W. Seagroves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Acetolactate Synthase ◽  
The United States ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Herbicide Resistant

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.

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.

Weed Control in Cotton by Combinations of Microencapsulated Acetochlor and Various Residual Herbicides Applied Preemergence

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 740-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Cahoon ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Wesley J. Everman ◽  
Richard W. Seagroves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Research ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Cotton Field ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Reduced Rate

Residual herbicides are routinely recommended to aid in control of glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth in cotton. Acetochlor, a chloroacetamide herbicide, applied PRE, controls Palmer amaranth. A microencapsulated (ME) formulation of acetochlor is now registered for PRE application in cotton. Field research was conducted in North Carolina to evaluate cotton tolerance and Palmer amaranth control by acetochlor ME alone and in various combinations. Treatments, applied PRE, consisted of acetochlor ME, pendimethalin, or no herbicide arranged factorially with diuron, fluometuron, fomesafen, diuron plus fomesafen, and no herbicide. The PRE herbicides were followed by glufosinate applied twice POST and diuron plus MSMA directed at layby. Acetochlor ME was less injurious to cotton than pendimethalin. Acetochlor ME alone or in combination with other herbicides reduced early season cotton growth 5 to 8%, whereas pendimethalin alone or in combinations injured cotton 11 to 13%. Early season injury was transitory, and by 65 to 84 d after PRE treatment, injury was no longer noticeable. Before the first POST application of glufosinate, acetochlor ME and pendimethalin controlled Palmer amaranth 84 and 64%, respectively. Control by acetochlor ME was similar to control by diuron plus fomesafen and greater than control by diuron, fluometuron, or fomesafen alone. Greater than 90% control was obtained with acetochlor ME mixed with diuron or fomesafen. Palmer amaranth control was similar with acetochlor ME plus a full or reduced rate of fomesafen. Acetochlor ME controlled large crabgrass and goosegrass at 91 and 100% compared with control at 83 and 91%, respectively, by pendimethalin. Following glufosinate, applied twice POST, and diuron plus MSMA, at layby, 96 to 99% control was obtained late in the season by all treatments, and no differences among herbicide treatments were noted for cotton yield. This research demonstrated that acetochlor ME can be safely and effectively used in cotton weed management programs.

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
Keyword(s):  
Growing Season ◽  
Solanum Nigrum ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Weed Competition ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Black Nightshade ◽  
Similar Information ◽  
Resultant Effect

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.

Comparative growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions

Weed Science ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Bond ◽  
Lawrence R. Oliver
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Leaf Area ◽  
Growth And Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Area Ratio ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Harvest Intervals ◽  
Net Assimilation ◽  
Stem Leaf

A 2-yr field study was conducted to compare growth characteristics of 24 Palmer amaranth accessions collected from across the indigenous range of the species in the United States. Variation in growth and development of Palmer amaranth was noted among accessions based on leaf area ratio (LAR), specific leaf area (SLA), net assimilation rate (NAR), and stem leaf ratio (SLR), but only SLR varied across harvest intervals among accessions. Accessions collected across the range of Palmer amaranth in the United States displayed variation in growth and development based on differences in LAR, SLA, NAR, and SLR. Observed differences among accessions indicate the existence of Palmer amaranth ecotypes.

Safety and efficacy of linuron with or without an adjuvant or S-metolachlor for POST control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Levi D. Moore ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
Ramon G. Leon ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nonionic Surfactant ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Total Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Foliar Injury ◽  
Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

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.

scholarly journals Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and sugarbeet to desmedipham and phenmedipham

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Clint W. Beiermann ◽  
Cody F. Creech ◽  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Amit J. Jhala ◽  
Robert Harveson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Selectivity Index ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Greenhouse Experiment ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
True Leaf ◽  
Cotyledon Stage ◽  
Equivalent Rate ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
High Level

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.

ECONOMIC INJURY LEVELS OF THE TARNISHED PLANT BUG, LYGUS LINEOLARIS (HEMIPTERA (HETEROPTERA): MIRIDAE), ON GREEN BEANS IN QUEBEC

1980 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. K. Stewart ◽  
A. R. Khattat
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Control ◽  
Crude Protein ◽  
Lygus Lineolaris ◽  
Green Beans ◽  
Flower Bud ◽  
Tarnished Plant Bug ◽  
Yield And Quality ◽  
Economic Injury ◽  
Plant Stage ◽  
Effect Of Feeding

AbstractCaged microplots of “Contender” green beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L., were artificially infested with various densities of Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) to determine the effect of feeding on yield and quality, and to establish economic injury levels. Plants infested at bloom or pod set stage were more severely injured than those infested at the flower bud stage. Higher infestation levels reduced crop yield, but the percentage of crude protein in bean seeds was not affected. Based on 1975 crop values and chemical control costs, economic injury levels ranged between 0.3 and 4.4 insects/10 plants depending on crop use, chemical control, and plant stage infested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document