Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-28T07:47:54.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Multiple herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Connecticut: confirmation and response to POST herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2021

Jatinder S. Aulakh*
Assistant Weed Scientist, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT, USA
Parminder S. Chahal
Field Development Representative, FMC Agricultural Solutions, Lincoln, NE, USA
Vipan Kumar
Assistant Professor, Kansas State University, KSU Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Andrew J. Price
Plant Physiologist, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Auburn, AL
Karl Guillard
Professor, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Author for correspondence: Jatinder S. Aulakh, Assistant Weed Scientist, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 153 Cook Hill Road, Windsor, CT06095. (Email:


Palmer amaranth is the latest pigweed species documented in Connecticut; it was identified there in 2019. In a single-dose experiment, the Connecticut Palmer amaranth biotype survived the field-use rates of glyphosate (840 g ae ha−1) and imazaquin (137 g ai ha−1) herbicides applied separately. Additional experiments were conducted to (1) determine the level of resistance to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors in the Connecticut-resistant (CT-Res) biotype using whole-plant dose-response bioassays, and (2) evaluate the response of the CT-Res biotype to POST herbicides commonly used in Connecticut cropping systems. Based on the effective dose required for 90% control (ED90), the CT-Res biotype was 10-fold resistant to glyphosate when compared with the Kansas-susceptible (KS-Sus) biotype. Furthermore, the CT-Res biotype was highly resistant to ALS-inhibitor herbicides; only 18% control was achieved with 2,196 g ai ha−1 imazaquin. The CT-Res biotype was also cross-resistant to other ALS-inhibitor herbicides, including chlorimuron-ethyl (13.1 g ai ha−1), halosulfuron-methyl (70 g ai ha−1), and sulfometuron-methyl (392 g ai ha−1). The CT-Res Palmer amaranth was controlled 75% to 100% at 21 d after treatment (DAT) with POST applications of 2,4-D (386 g ae ha−1), carfentrazone-ethyl (34 g ai ha−1), clopyralid (280 g ae ha−1), dicamba (280 g ae ha−1), glufosinate (595 g ai ha−1), lactofen (220 g ai ha−1), oxyfluorfen (1,121g ai ha−1), and mesotrione (105 g ai ha−1) herbicides. Atrazine (2,240 g ai ha−1) controlled the CT-Res biotype only 52%, suggesting the biotype is resistant to this herbicide as well. Here we report the first case of Palmer amaranth from Connecticut with multiple resistance to glyphosate and ALS inhibitors. Growers should proactively use all available weed control tactics, including the use of effective PRE and alternative POST herbicides (tested in this study), for effective control of the CT-Res biotype.

Research Article
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)


Associate Editor: R. Joseph Wuerffel, Syngenta


Aulakh, JS (2019) Weed alert: first report of Palmer amaranth in Connecticut-watch out for this pigweed! Accessed: August 10, 2020Google Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Chahal, PS, Jhala, AJ (2016) Glyphosate-resistant weed control and soybean injury in response to different PPO-inhibiting herbicides. J Agr Sci 8:19 Google Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS (2011) Weed management and cotton yield under two row spacings in conventional and conservation tillage systems utilizing conventional, glufosinate-, and glyphosate-based weed management systems. Weed Technol 25:542547 10.1614/WT-D-10-00124.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Enloe, SF, van Santen, E, Wehtje, G, Patterson, MG (2012) Integrated Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton, I: soil-inversion, high residue cover crops and herbicide regimes. Agronomy 2:295311 10.3390/agronomy2040295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Enloe, SF, Wehtje, G, Patterson, MG (2013) Integrated Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate resistant cotton, II: primary, secondary and conservation tillage. Agronomy 3:2842 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
Bertucci, MB, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Louws, FJ, Jordan, DL, Brownie, C (2019) Critical period for weed control in grafted and nongrafted watermelon grown in plasticulture. Weed Sci 76:18 Google Scholar
Bollman, JD, Boerboom, CM, Becker, RL, Fritz, VA (2008) Efficacy and tolerance to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides in sweet corn. Weed Technol 22:666674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, CT, DeFelice, MS (2010) Weeds of the Midwestern United States & Central Canada. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. 427 p Google Scholar
Burgos, NR, Kuk, YI, Talbert, RE (2001) Amaranthus palmeri resistance and differential tolerance of Amaranthus palmeri and Amaranthus hybridus to ALS-inhibitor herbicides. Pest Manag Sci 57:449457 10.1002/ps.308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367371 10.1614/WT-06-058.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Varanasi, VK, Jugulum, M, Jhala, AJ (2017) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska: confirmation, EPSPS gene amplification, and response to POST corn and soybean herbicides. Weed Technol 31:8093 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 10.1614/WT-03-139RCrossRefGoogle 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 10.1614/WS-06-001R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, PV Jr, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW, Coble, HD (2013) Influence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on the critical period for weed control in plasticulture-grown tomato. Weed Technol 27:165170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossett, BJ, Murdock, EC, Toler, JE (1992) Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol 6:587591 10.1017/S0890037X00035843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossett, BJ, Toler, JE (1999) Differential control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) by postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 13:165168 10.1017/S0890037X00045085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, WJ (1997) Control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 11:739743 10.1017/S0890037X00043360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2020) International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds. Accessed: July 5, 2020Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347355 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0347:GAOFAS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (1995) Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192195 10.1017/S0890037X00023174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Sandell, LD, Rana, N, Kruger, GR, Knezevic, SZ (2014) Confirmation and control of triazine and 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 28:2838 10.1614/WT-D-13-00090.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri ). Weed Sci 35:199204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, JC, Ritz, C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840848 10.1614/WT-06-161.1CrossRefGoogle 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 75:29252933 10.1002/ps.5400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Stahlman, PW (2020) Differential sensitivity of Kansas Palmer amaranth populations to multiple herbicides. Agron J 112:21522163 10.1002/agj2.20178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Horak, MJ, Boyer, J Jr (2001) Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202208 10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0202:IOPAIC]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullan, PM, Green, JM (2011) Identification of a tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype resistant to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides, atrazine, and thifensulfuron in Iowa. Weed Technol 25:514548 10.1614/WT-D-10-00150.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Schroeder, J, Heerema, R, Ashigh, J (2013) Resistance to glyphosate in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations from New Mexico pecan orchards. Weed Technol 27:8591 10.1614/WT-D-11-00144.1CrossRefGoogle 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 10.1614/WT-02-086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK, Reddy, KN, Kroger, CH, Poston, DH, Rimando, AM, 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 60:179188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerson, H (1989) Weed competition in muskmelon and its effects on yield and fruit quality. Crop Prot 8:439442 10.1016/0261-2194(89)90071-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108113 10.1614/WT-07-128.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Korres, N, Norsworthy, JS, Li, S (2018) Influence of a cereal rye cover crop and conservation tillage on the critical weed-free period in cotton. Weed Technol 32:683690 10.1017/wet.2018.73CrossRefGoogle 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 Manag Sci 72:864869 10.1002/ps.4241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, JD (1957) Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:1131 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1957.tb02872.xCrossRefGoogle 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 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0122:PAAPIO]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Webster, TM, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS (2014) Severed stems of Amaranthus palmeri are capable of regrowth and seed production in Gossypium hirsutum . Ann Appl Biol 165:147154 10.1111/aab.12129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, CL, Stoller, EW, Wax, LM, Horak, MJ (1997) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 45:192197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE (2007) The dioecious Amaranthus spp.: here to stay. Weed Technol 21:567570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Main, CL, Ellis, AT, Mueller, TC (2008) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Tennessee has low level glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol 22:119123 10.1614/WT-07-061.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweat, JK, Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE, Lloyd, RW, Boyer, JE (1998) Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:315321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, CR, Peterson, D, Lally, NG (2012) Characterization of HPPD-resistant Palmer amaranth. abstract-413.html. Accessed: July 14, 2020Google Scholar
[USDA APHIS]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Service (2020) Weed risk assessment for Amaranthus palmeri (Amaranthaceae)–Palmer’s amaranth. Accessed: July 15, 2020Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2017) 2017 Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in grass crops, pasture and turf in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. Accessed: July 19, 2020Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, SE (2014) Integrating weed and vegetable crop management with multifunctional air-propelled abrasive grits. Weed Technol 28:243252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar