Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-hlvcg Total loading time: 0.274 Render date: 2022-07-04T01:06:41.322Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Influence of timing of Palmer amaranth control in dicamba-resistant cotton on yield and economic return

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2020

Matthew D. Inman*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, SC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds 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
Andrew T. Hare
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, 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: Matthew D. Inman, Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, 2200 Pocket Road, Florence, SC29506. Email: mdinman@clemson.edu

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth continues to be challenging to control across the U.S. cotton belt. Timely application of POST herbicides and herbicides applied at planting or during the season with residual activity are utilized routinely to control this weed. Although glyphosate controls large Palmer amaranth that is not GR, herbicides such as glufosinate used in resistance management programs for GR Palmer amaranth must be applied when weeds are small. Dicamba can complement both glyphosate and glufosinate in controlling GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotypes in resistant cultivars. Two studies were conducted to determine Palmer amaranth control, weed biomass, and cotton yield, as well as to estimate economic net return when herbicides were applied 2, 3, 4, and 5 wk after planting (WAP). In one experiment POST-only applications were made. In the second experiment PRE herbicides were included. In general, Palmer amaranth was controlled at least 98% by herbicides applied at least three times regardless of timing of application or herbicide sequence. Glyphosate plus dicamba applied at 4 and 5 WAP controlled Palmer amaranth similarly compared to three applications by 8 WAP; however, yield was reduced 23% because of early-season interference. The inclusion of PRE herbicides benefited treatments that did not include herbicides applied 2 or 3 WAP. Glyphosate plus dicamba applied as the only herbicides 5 WAP provided 69% control of Palmer amaranth. PRE herbicides increased control to 96% for this POST treatment. Economic returns were similar when three or more POST applications were applied, with or without PRE herbicides.

Type
Research Article
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Daniel Stephenson, Louisana State University Agricultural Center

References

Askew, SD, Wilcut, JW (1999) Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:308313 Google Scholar
Barnett, KA, Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control by glufosinate plus fluometuron applied postemergence to WideStrike® cotton. Weed Technol 27:291297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ (2006) Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol 20:793814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G, Burns, E (1970) Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci 18:149154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG, Forcella, F (1997) Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci 45:329336 Google Scholar
Burke, IC, Troxler, SC, Askew, SD, Wilcut, JW, Smith, WD (2005) Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 19:422429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Seagroves, RW, Everman, WJ, Jennings, KM (2015a) Sequential and co-applications of glyphosate and glufosinate in cotton. J Cotton Sci 19:337350 Google Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM (2015b) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in dicamba-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 29:758770 Google Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Braswell, LR, Jennings, KM (2015c) Weed control in cotton by combinations of microencapsulated acetochlor and various residual herbicides applied preemergence. Weed Technol 29:740750 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2002) Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:326331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, JL, Askew, SD, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2004) Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol 18:443453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1998) Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J Cotton Sci 2:174185 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1999) Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and non-transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:411420 CrossRefGoogle 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 54:620626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM, York, AC (2010) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the United States. Pages 195212 in Nandula, VK, ed., Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development, and Management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Batts, RB, Jennings, KM (2000) Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:7788 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmisten, KL, Yelverton, FH, Bachelor, JS, Koenning, SR, Crozier, CR, Meijer, AD, Cleveland, BR, York, AC, Hardy, DH, Bullen, G (2015) Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Everman, WJ, Burke, IC, Allen, JR, Collins, J, Wilcut, JW (2007) Weed control and yield with glufosinate-resistant cotton weed management systems. Weed Technol 21:695701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, York, AC, Wilcut, JW (2009) Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen, and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol 23:391397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fast, BJ, Murdock, SW, Farris, RL, Willis, JB, Murray, DS (2009) Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in second-generation glyphosate-resistant cotton. J Cotton Sci 13:3236 Google Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 2946 in Camper, ND, ed., Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Inman, MD, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2017) Long-term management of Palmer amaranth with herbicides and cultural practices in cotton. Crop, Forage and Turfgrass Management 3:2017-03-0017, 10.2134/cftm2017.03.0017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman, MD, Jordan, DL, York, AC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Everman, WJ, Bollman, SL, Fowler, JT, Cole, RM, Soteres, JK (2016) Long-term management of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in dicamba-tolerant cotton. Weed Sci 64:161169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K, Steckel, L, Moechnig, M, Loux, M, Bernards, M, Smeda, R (2010) Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans. Crop Manag 9(1), 10.1094/CM-2010-0920-01-RS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, DL, Frans, RE, McClelland, MR (1993) Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol 7:196201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, DL, York, AC, Seagroves, RW, Everman, WJ, Clewis, B, Wilcut, J, Shaw, D, Owen, M, Wilson, R, Young, B, Weller, S (2014) Economic value of herbicide programs and implications for resistance management in North Carolina. Crop Manag 13, 10.2134/CM-2014-0023-RS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, AW, Culpepper, AS, Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM, Kichler, JM (2013) Cotton yield loss potential in response to length of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference. J Cotton Sci 17:227233 Google Scholar
Merchant, RM, Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Steckel, LE, York, AC, Braxton, LB, Ford, JC (2013) Weed response to 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba applied alone or with glufosinate. J Cotton Sci 17:212218 Google Scholar
Moore, KJ, Dixon, PM (2015) Analysis of combined experiments revisited. Agron J 107:763771 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
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Bagavathiannan, MV (2018) Weed seedbank management: revisiting how herbicides are evaluated. Weed Sci 66:415417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Schrage, BW, Barber, TL, Schwartz, LM (2016) Emergence date influences growth and fecundity of Palmer amaranth in cotton. J Cotton Sci 20:263270 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Steckel, LE, Koger, CH (2009) Weed seed contamination of cotton gin trash. Weed Technol 23:574580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP1):3162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, MW, Murray, DS, Verhalen, LM (1999) Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 47:305309 CrossRefGoogle 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 14:122126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393402 Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2010) Environment and soil conditions influence pre- and postemergence herbicide efficacy in soybean. Weed Technol 24:234243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vann, RA, York, AC, Cahoon, CW, Buck, TB, Askew, MC, Seagroves, RW (2017a) Effect of delayed dicamba plus glufosinate on Palmer amaranth control and XtendFlex cotton yield. Weed Technol 31:633640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vann, RA, York, AC, Cahoon, CW, Buck, TB, Askew, MC, Seagroves, RW (2017b) Glufosinate plus dicamba for rescue Palmer amaranth control in XtendFlex cotton. Weed Technol 31:666674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Pages 275–287 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle 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
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM (2011) Residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control. J Cotton Sci 15:8999 Google Scholar
York, AC, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Bollman, S (2012) Palmer amaranth management in dicamba/glufosinate tolerant cotton. Page 98 in Proceedings of the 2012 Southern Weed Science Society 65th Annual Meeting. Charleston, SC: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar

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.

Influence of timing of Palmer amaranth control in dicamba-resistant cotton on yield and economic return
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.

Influence of timing of Palmer amaranth control in dicamba-resistant cotton on yield and economic return
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.

Influence of timing of Palmer amaranth control in dicamba-resistant cotton on yield and economic return
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? *