Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T04:38:35.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of soybean population and POST herbicide application timing on in-season and subsequent-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control and economic returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2020

Denis J. Mahoney Open the ORCID record for Denis J. Mahoney [Opens in a new window] ,
David L. Jordan ,
Andrew T. Hare ,
Nilda Roma-Burgos ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Ramon G. Leon ,
Matthew C. Vann ,
Wesley J. Everman  and
Charles W. Cahoon
Denis J. Mahoney*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Andrew T. Hare
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Nilda Roma-Burgos
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Ramon G. Leon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Matthew C. Vann
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Charles W. Cahoon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Denis Mahoney, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC27695. Email: djmahone@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Overreliance on herbicides for weed control has led to the evolution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth populations. Farm managers should consider the long-term consequences of their short-term management decisions, especially when considering the soil weed seedbank. The objectives of this research were to (1) determine how soybean population and POST herbicide application timing affects in-season Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield, and (2) how those variables influence Palmer amaranth densities and cotton yields the following season. Soybeans were planted (19-cm row spacing) at a low-, medium-, and high-density population (268,000, 546,000, and 778,000 plants ha–1, respectively). Fomesafen and clethodim (280 and 210 g ai ha–1, respectively) were applied at the VE, V1, or V2 to V3 soybean growth stage. Nontreated plots were also included to assess the effect of soybean population alone. The following season, cotton was planted into these plots so as to understand the effects of soybean planting population on Palmer amaranth densities in the subsequent crop. When an herbicide application occurred at the V1 or V2 to V3 soybean stage, weed control in the high-density soybean population increased 17% to 23% compared to the low-density population. Economic return was not influenced by soybean population and was increased 72% to 94% with herbicide application compared to no treatment. In the subsequent cotton crop, Palmer amaranth densities were 24% to 39% lower 3 wk after planting when following soybean sprayed with herbicides compared to soybean without herbicides. Additionally, Palmer amaranth densities in cotton were 19% lower when soybean was treated at the VE stage compared to later stages. Thus, increasing soybean population can improve Palmer amaranth control without adversely affecting economic returns and can reduce future weed densities. Reducing the weed seedbank and selection pressure from herbicides are critical in mitigating resistance evolution.

Keywords

Weed interferenceresistance managementcultural practicesClethodimfomesafenPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 106 - 112
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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

Associate Editor: Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri

References

Bagavathiannan, MV, Davis, AS (2018) An ecological perspective on managing weeds during the great selection for herbicide resistance. Pest Manag Sci 74:2277–2286 10.1002/ps.4920CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, HD, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Popp, M (2015) Effect of row spacing, seeding rate, and herbicide program in glufosinate-resistant soybean on Palmer amaranth management. Weed Technol 29:390–404 10.1614/WT-D-14-00156.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinder, RR, Arsenovic, M, Shah, DA, Rauch, BJ (2003) Effect of weed growth stage and adjuvant on the efficacy of fomesafen and bentazon. Weed Sci 51:1016–1021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullen, G, Dunphy, J, Washburn, D (2019) Estimated costs and returns for full-season soybean in the Coastal Plain. North Carolina State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Raleigh, NC. https://cals.ncsu.edu/are-extension/grain-budgets/. Accessed: February 27, 2019Google Scholar
[CAST] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (2012) Herbicide-resistant weeds threaten soil conservation gains: finding a balance for soil and farm sustainability. Issue Paper 49. Ames, IA: CASTGoogle Scholar
Corbett, JL, Askew, SD, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2004) Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol 18:443–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, CB, Jordan, DL, Owen, MDK, Dixon, PM, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Weller, SC, Shaw, DR (2014) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States: economics of herbicide resistance management practices in a five-year, field scale study. Pest Manag Sci 70:1924–1929 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, W, Rana, S, Schrage, B, Stowe, K, York, A (2018) Weed management, in Stowe K, ed, North Carolina Soybean Production Guide. AG-835. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/north-carolina-soybean-production-guide/soybean-weed-management. Accessed: August 23, 2020Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE, Burmood, DT, Pennington, JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci 11:929–931 10.2135/cropsci1971.0011183X001100060051xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, JD, Young, BG, Owen, MDK, Gage, KL, Matthews, JL, Jordan, DL, Shaw, DR, Weller, SC, Wilson, RG (2015) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 7: Effects of weed management strategy (grower practices versus academic recommendations) on the weed soil seedbank over 6 years. Pest Manag Sci 72:692–700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, SA, Loux, MM, Cardina, J, Harrison, SK (2002) Effect of planting date, residual herbicide program, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:488–494 10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0488:EOPDRH]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, DB, Sprague, CL, Renner, KA (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technol 21:744–752 10.1614/WT-06-122.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, KN (2013) Slowing weed evolution with integrated weed management. Can J Plant Sci 93:759–764 10.4141/cjps2013-049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) International herbicide-resistant weed database. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: August 27, 2020Google Scholar
Hock, SM, Knezevic, SZ, Martin, AR, Lindquist, JL (2006) Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Sci 54:38–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffner, AE, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Dunphy, EJ, Everman, WJ (2012) Influence of soybean (Glycine max) population and herbicide program on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control, soybean yield, and economic return. International Scholarly Research Notices, vol 2012, Article ID 947395, doi: 10.5402/2012/947395. 8 p Google 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, GA, Hoverstad, TR (2002) Effect of row spacing and herbicide application timing on weed control and grain yield in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:548–553 10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0548:EORSAH]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RE, Walker, RH, Wehtje, G (1997) Soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) sap flow in interspecific competition. Weed Sci 45:409–413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudsk, P, Streibig, JC (2003) Herbicides––a two-edged sword. Weed Res 43:90–102 10.1046/j.1365-3180.2003.00328.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischler, RA, Curran, WS, Duiker, SW, Hyde, JA (2010) Use of a rolled-rye cover crop for weed suppression in no-till soybeans. Weed Technol 24:253–261 10.1614/WT-D-09-00004.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, AM, Ulf-Hansen, PF, Putwain, PD (1992) Modeling herbicide resistance–a study of ecological fitness. Pages 283–306 in Denholm, I, Devonshire, AL, Hollomons, DW, eds, Achievements and Developments in Combating Pesticide Resistance. Essex, UK: Elsevier Google Scholar
Nelson, KA (2007) Glyphosate application timings in twin- and single-row corn and soybean spacings. Weed Technol 21:186–190 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nice, GRW, Buehring, NW, Shaw, DR (2001) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to shading, soybean (Glycine max) row spacing, and population in three management systems. Weed Technol 15:155–162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Bagavathiannan, MV (2018) Weed seedbank management: revisiting how herbicides are evaluated. Weed Sci 66:415–417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliver, LR (2001) Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin. Weed Technol 15:284–292 10.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0284:EOSROD]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poirier, AH, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Chandi, A, Everman, WJ, Whitaker, JR (2014) Distribution of glyphosate- and thifensulfuron-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in North Carolina. Int J Agron, vol 2014, Article ID 747810. doi: 10.1155/2014/747810. 7 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66:265–275 10.2489/jswc.66.4.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, DT, Baker, RV, Steele, GL (2000) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 14:122–126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, KD, Crozier, C, Bullen, G, Dunphy, EJ, Everman, W, Hardy, D, Osmond, D, Piggot, N, Randa, S, Reisig, D, Roberson, GT, Schrage, B, Thiessen, L, Washburn, D (2018) North Carolina soybean production guide. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Pub AG-835. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 186 p Google Scholar
Tharp, BE, Schabenberger, O, Kells, JJ (1999) Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol 13:542–547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019) Prices received for soybean by month––United States. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/pricesb.php. Accessed: September 12, 2019Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) WSSA survey ranks Palmer amaranth as the most troublesome weed in the US, galium as the most troublesome in Canada. Weed Science Society of America. http://wssa.net/2016/04/wssa-survey-ranks-palmer-amaranth-as-the-most-troublesome-weed-in-the-u-s-galium-as-the-most-troublesome-in-canada/. Accessed: August 27, 2020Google Scholar
Vann, RA, Reberg-Horton, SC, Brinton, CM (2016) Row spacing and seeding rate effects on canola population, weed competition, and yield in winter organic canola production. Agron J 108:2425–2432 10.2134/agronj2016.02.0097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 10.1614/WT-D-12-00113.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Grey, TL (2015) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) morphology, growth, and seed production in Georgia. Weed Sci 63:264–272 10.1614/WS-D-14-00051.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar