Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:15:17.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variable Tolerance among Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Biotypes to Glyphosate, 2,4-D Amine, and Premix Formulation of Glyphosate plus 2,4-D Choline (Enlist Duo®) Herbicide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

Douglas J. Spaunhorst  and
William G. Johnson
Douglas J. Spaunhorst*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant and Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant and Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: Douglas.Spaunhorst@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adoption of soybean that is resistant to 2,4-D will result in more use of glyphosate plus 2,4-D premixes and tank mixtures. Preliminary whole-plant greenhouse assays confirm most Palmer amaranth populations found in Indiana are glyphosate-resistant (GR), and some biotypes exhibit tolerance to 2,4-D amine. Dose–response experiments were conducted to determine the level of glyphosate resistance and 2,4-D amine tolerance in four Palmer amaranth biotypes. A premix formulation of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline was also evaluated. The R1, R2, and R3 biotypes were 31- to 66-fold more resistant to glyphosate (R:S ratio) than the S1 biotype based on the herbicide dose to cause 90% mortality (LD90). The maximum POST rate of the premix formulation of Enlist Duo® labeled in ‘Enlist®’ soybean is 2,195 g ae ha−1. When separated by active ingredient, the maximum POST rate of Enlist Duo® is equivalent to 1,141 and 1,054 g ae ha−1 of glyphosate and 2,4-D choline, respectively. In the absence of glyphosate, the maximum rate of 2,4-D (1,054 g ae ha−1) in the premix formulation of Enlist Duo® controlled S1, R2, and R3 biotypes, but failed to control all plants from the R1 biotype. Estimates for LD90 showed the R1 biotype was 3-fold more tolerant than the S1 biotype to 2,4-D amine. However, no plants survived the 1,155 g ae ha−1 (600 g ae ha−1 of glyphosate plus 555 g ae ha−1 2,4-D) treatment with the premix formulation of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline. Overall, results from this experiment suggest GR Palmer amaranth that also exhibits increased tolerance to 2,4-D amine will be difficult to control with glyphosate or 2,4-D alone, but can be controlled POST with Enlist Duo® at lower than labeled field rates (1,618 to 2,195 g ae ha−1).

Keywords

2,4-D amine2,4-D cholineEnlist Duo®glyphosatePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Dose–responseherbicide tolerancelethal doseresistance management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 65 , Issue 6 , November 2017 , pp. 787 - 797
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.)

Footnotes

a

Current address of first author: Research Agronomist, USDA-ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360.

Associate Editor for this paper: Prashant Jha, Montana State University.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2017a) Enlist Duo® herbicide product label. EPA Reg. No. 62719-649. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017b) Touchdown HiTech® herbicide product label. EPS Reg. No. 100-1182. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. 33 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017c) Weedar® 64 herbicide product label. EPA Reg. No. 71368-1. Alsip, IL: Nufarm. 9 pGoogle Scholar
Archontoulis, SV, Miguez, FE (2015) Nonlinear regression models and applications in agriculture research. Agron J 107:786–798 Google Scholar
Benbrook, CM (2012) Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US—the first sixteen years. Env Sci Eur 24:24 Google Scholar
Bernards, ML, Crespo, RJ, Kruger, GR, Gaussoin, R, Tranel, PJ (2012) A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population resistant to 2,4-D. Weed Sci 60:379–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgos, NR (2015) Whole-plant and seed bioassays for resistance confirmation. Weed Sci 63(SP1):152–165 Google Scholar
Chahal, PS, Aulakh, JS, Rosenbaum, K, Jhala, AJ (2015) Growth stage affects dose response of selected glyphosate-resistant weeds to premix of 2,4-D choline and glyphosate (Enlist Duo® herbicide). J Agric Sci 7:1–10 Google Scholar
Chatham, LA, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Martin, JR, Owen, MDK, Peterson, DE, Mithila, J, Tranel, PJ (2015) A multistate study of the association between glyphosate resistance and EPSPS gene amplification in waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Weed Sci 63:569–577 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
Culpepper, AS, Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM, York, AC (2010) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the US. Pages 195–212 in V. K. Nandula, ed. Glyphosate Resistance: Evolution, Mechanisms, and Management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Google Scholar
Gossett, BJ, Murdock, DC, Toler, JE (1992) Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol 6:587–591 Google Scholar
Gressel, J (2009) Evolving understanding of the evolution of herbicide resistance. Pest Manag Sci 65:1164–1173 Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Turpin, FS II, Wells, L, Webster, TM (2014) A survey of weeds and herbicides in Georgia pecan. Weed Technol 28:552–559 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: April 20, 2017.Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (1995) Populations of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192–195 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 Google Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Rana, N, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2014) Conformation and control of triazine and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 28:28–38 Google Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, J (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840–848 Google Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2008) Response and survival of rosette-stage horseweed (Conyza canadensis) after exposure to 2,4-D. Weed Sci 56:748–752 Google Scholar
Legleiter, T, Johnson, B (2013) Palmer amaranth biology, identification, and management in Indiana. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/WS/WS-51-W.pdf. Accessed August 22, 2015.Google Scholar
Menges, RM (1987) Weed seed population dynamics during six years of weed management systems in crop rotations on irrigated soil. Weed Sci 35:328–332 Google Scholar
Moretti, ML, Hanson, BD, Hembree, KJ, Shrestha, A (2013) Glyphosate resistance is more variable than paraquat resistance in a multiple-resistant hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) population. Weed Sci 61:396–402 Google Scholar
Nandula, VK, Reddy, KN, Koger, CH, Poston, DH, Rimando, AG, Duke, SO, Bond, JA, Ribeiro, DN (2012) Multiple resistance to glyphosate and pyrithiobac in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Mississippi and response to flumiclorac. Weed Sci 60:179–188 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2003) Use of soybean production surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol 17:195–201 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, NR, Oliver, LR (2001) Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol 15:725–731 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Steckel, LE, Koger, CH (2009) Weed seed contamination of cotton gin trash. Weed Technol 23:574–580 Google Scholar
Peterson, DE (1999) The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol 13:632–635 Google Scholar
Pratley, J, Urwin, N, Stanton, R, Baines, P, Broster, J, Cullis, K, Schafer, D, Bohn, J, Krueger, R (1999) Resistance to glyphosate in Lolium rigidum. I. Bioevaluation. Weed Sci 47:405–411 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Kniss, AR, Streibig, JC (2015) Research methods in weed science: statistics. Weed Sci 63(SP1):166–187 Google Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2012) Summer annual weed control with 2,4-D and glyphosate. Weed Technol 26:657–660 Google Scholar
Rowland, MW, Murray, DS, Verhalen, LM (1999) Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 47:305–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, RA, Burgos, NR, Tranel, PJ, Singh, S, Glasgow, L, Scott, RC, Nichols, RL (2016) Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide in Palmer amaranth from Arkansas. Pest Manage Sci 72:864–869 Google Scholar
Sauer, JD (1957) Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious Amaranthus . Evolution 11:11–31 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402 Google Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of dicamba and dicamba plus glyphosate combinations on the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Technol 27:675–681 Google Scholar
Waggoner, BS, Mueller, TC, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE (2011) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with saflufenacil tank mixtures in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 25:310–315 Google Scholar