Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-02T20:15:17.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glyphosate-Resistant Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Control and Economic Returns with Herbicide Programs in Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Travis R. Legleiter
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Kevin W. Bradley*
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Raymond E. Massey
Division of Agriculture Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Corresponding author's E-mail:


Field experiments were conducted in Platte County, Missouri, during 2006 and 2007 to evaluate PRE, POST, and PRE followed by (fb) POST herbicide programs for the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in soybean. All PRE fb POST treatments resulted in at least 66 and 70% control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp was less than 23% with lactofen and acifluorfen in 2006, but at least 64% in 2007. Variability in control likely resulted from differences in trial locations and a population of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)–resistant waterhemp at the Platte County site in 2006 compared with 2007. In both years, glyphosate resulted in less than 23% control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp and provided the least control of all herbicide programs. Programs containing PRE herbicides resulted in waterhemp densities of less than 5 plants/m2, whereas the POST glyphosate treatment resulted in 38 to 70 plants/m2. Waterhemp seed production was reduced at least 78% in all PRE fb POST programs, from 55 to 71% in POST programs containing lactofen and acifluorfen and by only 21% in the POST glyphosate treatment. Soybean yields corresponded to the level of waterhemp control achieved in both years, with the lowest yields resulting from programs that provided poorest waterhemp control. PRE applications of S-metolachlor plus metribuzin provided one of the highest net incomes in both years and resulted in $271 to $340/ha greater net income than the glyphosate-only treatment. Collectively, the results from these experiments illustrate the effectiveness of PRE herbicides for the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in glyphosate-resistant soybean and the inconsistency of PPO-inhibiting herbicides or PPO-inhibiting herbicide combinations for the control of waterhemp populations with multiple resistance to glyphosate and PPO-inhibiting herbicides.

Weed Management—Major Crops
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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.)


Literature Cited

Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and 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
Bradley, K. W., Legleiter, T., Hunter, L., Nichols, C., and Foresman, C. 2007. The status of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in Missouri. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 62:192. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Bradley, K. W., Li, J., and Monnig, N. H. 2006. Greenhouse investigations of suspected glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp populations form Missouri. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. no. 206. [CD-ROM computer file]. Lawrence, KS: Weed Sci. Soc. Am.Google Scholar
Dirks, J. T., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Wiebold, W. J., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci 48:628639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[FAPRI] Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute 2008a. US Baseline Briefing Book March 2008. Columbia, MO: Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri. 27.Google Scholar
[FAPRI] Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute 2008b. Missouri Crop Budget for 2008. Accessed: April 23, 2008.Google Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci 46:514520.Google Scholar
Hager, A. and Sprague, C. 2002. Weeds on the horizon. in Steffey, K., editor. The Pest Management and Crop Development Bulletin, 6. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hager, A., Wax, L., and McGlamery, M. 1997. Waterhemp—biology of a troublesome species. in. The Pest Management and Crop Development Bulletin, 4. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Simmons, F. W. 2002a. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) management with soil-applied herbicides in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Crop Prot 21:277283.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2002b. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci 50:607610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Battles, B. A. 2004. Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean. Weed Sci 52:242245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578584.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2008. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Accessed: March 26, 2008.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192195.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 14:5765.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1998. Sulfentrazone for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:684689.Google Scholar
Legleiter, T. R. and Bradley, K. W. 2008. Glyphosate and multiple herbicide resistance in waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations from Missouri. Weed Sci 56:582587.Google Scholar
Lovell, S. T., Wax, L. M., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 1996. Imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci 44:789794.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2005. A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci 53:3036.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-resistant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol 14:204211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145150.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004. Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol 18:947952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Simmons, F. W., Bollero, G., Hager, A., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Tillage and cropping effects on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and seed bank distribution over four years. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 41:321. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:315321.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2008. National Agriculture Statistics Service. Agriculture Chemical Use Database. Accessed: March 26, 2008.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703705.Google Scholar