Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-04T20:56:57.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EnlistTM Weed Control Systems for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Management in Texas High Plains Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2017

Misha R. Manuchehri ,
Peter A. Dotray  and
J. Wayne Keeling
Misha R. Manuchehri*
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant and Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
Peter A. Dotray
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant and Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
J. Wayne Keeling
Affiliation:
Professor, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Lubbock, TX 79403.
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: misha.manuchehri@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management systems were established near Lubbock, TX in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to assess the effectiveness of premixed 2,4-D choline+glyphosate alone and in combination with glufosinate and soil-residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control. Systems consisted of trifluralin applied preplant incorporated followed by an early POST application followed by a mid-POST application. Palmer amaranth control 21 days after the early POST application ranged from 75 to 90% for all treatments that included 2,4-D choline+glyphosate alone or in a tank-mixture in 2013. Twenty-eight days after the mid-POST application, Palmer amaranth was controlled 86 to 99% for all herbicide systems with the exception of systems that included a mid-POST application of glufosinate alone. Combined across 2014 and 2015, Palmer amaranth control 21 days after the early POST application ranged from 96 to 98% for all systems that included 2,4-D choline+glyphosate, 2,4-D choline alone, or 2,4-D choline in a tank-mixture. Combined across 2014 and 2015, Palmer amaranth control 28 days after the mid-POST application ranged from 95 to 100% with the exception of the following: trifluralin preplant incorporated followed by glufosinate with or without acetochlor applied early POST followed by glufosinate mid-POST and trifluralin preplant incorporated followed by glyphosate early POST followed by glyphosate mid-POST. Overall, numerous effective systems were identified; however, systems containing 2,4-D choline+glyphosate or 2,4-D choline early POST and/or mid-POST were among the most effective. Glyphosate or glufosinate only systems or systems that relied on glufosinate alone at the mid-POST timing were inconsistent and often performed poorly.

Keywords

2,4-D cholineglyphosateglufosinatePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Enlist cottonEnlist Duoglyphosate resistancetank mixtures

Information

Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 793 - 798
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

a

Current address of first author: Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 371 Agricultural Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078.

Associate Editor for this paper: Jason Bond, Mississippi State University

References

Literature Cited

Bronson, K (2004) Nutrient Management for Texas High Plains Cotton Production. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://terry.agrilife.org/files/2011/09/acf20cc.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2016Google Scholar
Coetzer, E, Al-khatib, K, Loughin, TM (2000) Glufosinate efficacy absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci 49:8–13 Google Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of herbicide programs on weed management in soybean with resistance to glufosinate and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:78–84 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 Google Scholar
Foresman, C, Glasgow, L (2008) US grower perceptions and experiences with glyphosate-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 64:388–391 Google Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Kelley, M, Keeling, W, Keys, K, Morgan, G (2014) 2014 High Plains and Northern Rolling Plains Cotton Harvest-Aid Guide. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://cotton.tamu.edu./General%20Production/2014_Harvest_Aid_Guide.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2016Google Scholar
Kerns, DL, Sanson, CG, Siders, KT, Baugh, BA (2009) Managing Cotton Insects in the High Plains, Rolling Plains, and Trans Pecos Areas of Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/Production/e6.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2016Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017) Weeds Resistant to EPSP Synthase Inhibitors (G/9). http://www.weedscien ce.org/Summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12. Accessed May 20, 2017Google Scholar
Merchant, RM, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM, Richburg, JS, Braxton, LB (2014) Controlling glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton with resistance to glyphosate, 2,4-D, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 28:291–297 Google Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modeling glyphosate resistance management strategies for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 25:335–343 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Scott, RC, Gbur, EE (2007) Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas cotton. Weed Technol 21:825–831 Google Scholar
Richburg, JS, Wright, JR, Braxton, LB, Robinson, AE, inventors; Dow AgroSciences, assignee (2012) July 12. Increased tolerance of DHT-enabled plants to auxinic herbicides resulting from MOIETY differences in auxinic molecule structures. US patent 13,345,236Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Stuart, BL, Harrison, SK, Abernathy, JR, Krieg, DR, Wendt, CW (1984) The response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) water relations to smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) competition. Weed Sci 32:126–132 Google Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by arloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. 107:20240–20245 Google Scholar
Young, BG (2006) Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301–307 Google Scholar