Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-662rr Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2022-05-20T05:10:30.822Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Article contents

Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) intraspecific and interspecific interference in soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2019

Nicholas T. Basinger*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Erin L. Hestir
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California–Merced, Merced, CA, USA
Matthew B. Bertucci
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Cavell Brownie
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor, Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nicholas T. Basinger, University of Georgia, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, 3111 Miller Plant Sciences, 120 Carlton Street, Athens, GA 30602. (Email: nicholas.basinger@uga.edu)

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2016 and 2017 at Clinton, NC, to quantify the effects of season-long interference of large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) on ‘AG6536’ soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed density treatments consisted of 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 plants m−2 for A. palmeri and 0, 1, 2, 4, and 16 plants m−2 for D. sanguinalis with (interspecific interference) and without (intraspecific interference) soybean to determine the impacts on weed biomass, soybean biomass, and seed yield. Biomass per square meter increased with increasing weed density for both weed species with and without soybean present. Biomass per square meter of D. sanguinalis was 617% and 37% greater when grown without soybean than with soybean, for 1 and 16 plants m−2 respectively. Biomass per square meter of A. palmeri was 272% and 115% greater when grown without soybean than with soybean for 1 and 8 plants m−2, respectively. Biomass per plant for D. sanguinalis and A. palmeri grown without soybean was greatest at the 1 plant m−2 density. Biomass per plant of D. sanguinalis plants across measured densities was 33% to 83% greater when grown without soybean compared with biomass per plant when soybean was present for 1 and 16 plants m−2, respectively. Similarly, biomass per plant for A. palmeri was 56% to 74% greater when grown without soybean for 1 and 8 plants m−2, respectively. Biomass per plant of either weed species was not affected by weed density when grown with soybean due to interspecific competition with soybean. Yield loss for soybean grown with A. palmeri ranged from 14% to 37% for densities of 1 to 8 plants m−2, respectively, with a maximum yield loss estimate of 49%. Similarly, predicted loss for soybean grown with D. sanguinalis was 0 % to 37% for densities of 1 to 16 m−2 with a maximum yield loss estimate of 50%. Soybean biomass was not affected by weed species or density. Results from these studies indicate that A. palmeri is more competitive than D. sanguinalis at lower densities, but that similar yield loss can occur when densities greater than 4 plants m−2 of either weed are present.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 67 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 649 - 656
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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.)

References

Aguyoh, JN, Masiunas, JB (2003) Interference of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) with snap beans. Weed Sci 51:171176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK (2016) Multiple-herbicide resistance is widespread in roadside Palmer amaranth populations. PLoS ONE 11: e0148748 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, ER, Jhala, AJ, Knezevic, SZ, Sikkema, PH, Lindquist, JL (2018) Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) interference with soybean in Nebraska. Agron J 110:646653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, NT, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Hestir, EL, Waldschmidt, MD, Smith, SC, Brownie, C (2019) Interspecific and intraspecific interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci, 67:426432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, AC, Price, AJ, Sturgill, MC, Boul, GS, Wilkerson, GG (2003) HADSSTM, Pocket HerbTM, and WebHADSSTM: decision aids for field crops. Weed Technol 17:412420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:3743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briscoe Runquist, RD, Lake, T, Tiffin, P, Moeller, DA (2019) Species distribution models throughout the invasion history of Palmer amaranth predict regions at risks of future invasion and reveal challenges with modeling rapidly shifting geographic ranges. Sci Rep 9:2426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, JD, Coble, HD (1991) Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 5:263269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandi, A, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Milla-Lewis, SR, Burton, JD, Culpepper, AS, Whitaker, JR (2012) Interference of selected Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotypes in soybean (Glycine max). Int J Agron 2012:168267, 10.1155/2012/168267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, HD, Mortensen, DA (1992) The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol 6:191195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, JD, Giacomini, DA, Tranel, PJ, Montgomery, GB (2018) Distribution of PPX2 mutations conferring PPO-inhibitor resistance in Palmer amaranth population of Tennessee. Weed Technol 32:592596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann Appl Biol 107:239252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, R, Brain, P, O’Donnovan, JT, O’Sullivan, PA (1987) The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci 35:720725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P, Weaver, SE, Swanton, CJ (1998) Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 46:533539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Schutte, BJ, Hager, AG, Young, BG (2015) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) damage niche in Illinois soybean is seed limited. Weed Sci 63:658668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, R, Royer, F (2014) Weeds of North America [e-book]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available from: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), Ipswich, MA. Accessed: November 13, 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1995) Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612618 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, R, Ashley, RA (2006) Interference of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), and hairy galinsoga (Galinsoga ciliata) with bell pepper. Weed Sci 54:364372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, D, Westra, P, Ward, SM (2014) Impact of genetic background in fitness cost studies: an example from glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Weed Sci 62:2937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Tracewicz, E, Page, ER, Swanton, CJ (2012) Light quality and the critical period for weed control in soybean. Weed Sci 60:8691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, P, Al-Khatib, K (2003) Temperature effects on germination of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis). Weed Sci 51:869875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. https://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: April 22, 2019Google Scholar
Hidayat, I, Preston, C (1997) Enhanced metabolism of fluazifop acid in a biotype of Digitaria sanguinalis resistant to the herbicide fluazifop-p-butyl. Pestic Biochem Phys 57:137146 CrossRefGoogle 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 54:3846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, OW, Oliver, LR (1987) Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci 35:185193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohrt, JR, Sprague, CL, Nadakuduti, SS, Douches, D (2017) Confirmation of a three-way (glyphosate, ALS, and atrazine) herbicide resistant population of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Michigan. Weed Sci 65:327338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK, Mauromoustakos, A (2019) Effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) establishment time and distance from the crop row on biological and phenological characteristics of the weed: implications on soybean yield. Weed Sci 67:126135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A (1973) Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometrics Methods. 1st ed. London: Macmillan. 601 p Google Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Boyer, G, Stahlman, PW (2019) Confirmation of 2,4-D resistance and identification of multiple resistance in a Kansas Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) population. Pest Manag Sci, 10.1002/ps.5400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laforest, M, Soufiane, B, Simard, M, Obeid, K, Page, E, Nurse, RE (2017) Acetyl-CoA carboxylase overexpression in herbicide-resistant large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis). Pest Manag Sci 73:22272235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassiter, BR, York, AC (2009) North Carolina Web Herbicide Decision Support System. https://www.webhadss.ncsu.edu. Accessed: March 28, 2019Google Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Horak, MJ, Boyer, J Jr (2001) Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Trooien, TP (2003) Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci 51:523531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, CG, Sciumbato, GL (1988) Effects of row spacing, benomyl, and duration of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference on soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Sci 36:254259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, DW, Oliver, LR (1988) Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci 36:770774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR (1998) Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Sci 46:530532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, JW, Murray, DS, Westerman, RB (2004) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) effects on the harvest and yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol 18:2329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, GD, Baumann, PA, Chandler, JM (2001) Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol 15:408412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF, Elmore, CL, Rejmanek, M, Akey, WC (2001) Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: II. Barnyardgrass growth and seed production. Weed Sci 49:6976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliveira, MJ, Jha, P, Malik, M, Buckelew, JK, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2008) Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass growth with plasticulture-grown bell pepper. Weed Technol 22:296302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreja, FH, Gonzalez-Andujar, JL (2007) Modeling competition between large crabgrass and glyphosate-resistant soybean in the Rolling Pampas of Argentina. Commun Biometry Crop Sci 2:6267 Google Scholar
Rangani, G, Salas-Perez, RA, Aponte, RA, Knapp, M, Craig, IR, Mietzner, T, Langaro, AC, Noguera, MM, Porri, A, Roma-Burgos, N (2019) A novel single-site mutation in the catalytic domain of protoporphyrinogen oxidase IX (PPO) confers resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides. Front Plant Sci 10:568 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, LM, Gibson, DJ, Young, BG. 2016. Do plant traits predict the competitive abilities of closely related species? AoB Plants 8:plv147, 10.1093/aobpla/plv147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrefler, JW, Shilling, DG, Dusky, JA, Brecke, BJ (1994) Influence of phosphorus fertility on intra- and interspecific interference between lettuce (Latuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci. 42:574578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, BS, Murray, DS, Green, JD, Wanyahaya, WM, Weeks, DL (1990) Interference of three annual grasses with grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol 4:245249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J-S, Kim, J-W, Im, J-H, Lee, K-J, Lee, B-W, Kim, D-S (2017) The effects of single- and multiple-weed interference on soybean yield in the far-eastern region of Russia. Weed Sci 65:371380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, KD, Crozier, C, Bullen, G, Dunphy, J, Everman, W, Hardy, D, Osmond, D, Piggott, N, Rana, S, Reisig, D, Roberson, G, Schrage, B, Thiessen, L, Washburn, D (2018) North Carolina Soybean Production Guide. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension, AG-835. 176 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2012) Census of Agriculture. State Profile: North Carolina. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/North_Carolina/cp99037.pdf. Accessed: March 28, 2019Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2018) Quick Stats. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: March 28, 2019Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2016 Survey of the Most Common and Troublesome Weeds in Broadleaf Crops, Fruits & Vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. https://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2016-Weed-Survey_Broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: August 27, 2019Google Scholar
Varanasi, VK, Brabham, C, Norsworthy, JK (2018) Confirmation and characterization of non–target site resistance to fomesafen in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 66:702709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volenberg, D, Stoltenberg, D (2002) Altered acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase confers resistance to clethodim, fluazifop and sethoxydim in Setaria faberi and Digitaria sanguinalis . Weed Res 42:342350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Coble, HD (1997) Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974–1995. Weed Technol 11:308317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Grey, TL (2015) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) morphology, growth and seed production in Georgia. Weed Sci 63:264272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiederholt, RJ, Stoltenberg, DE (1996) Similar fitness between large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) accessions resistant or susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Technol 10:4249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (2004) Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Blackwell. 220 p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) intraspecific and interspecific interference in soybean
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) intraspecific and interspecific interference in soybean
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) intraspecific and interspecific interference in soybean
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *