Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T06:59:32.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multistate screening of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) sensitivity to glufosinate, dicamba and 2,4-D in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2023

Daljit Singh ,
Andrew Tyre ,
Alejandro Perez-Jones ,
Jenny Krebel ,
John Willis ,
Jeffrey Herrmann ,
Tracy Klingaman ,
Graham Head  and
Chandrashekar Aradhya Open the ORCID record for Chandrashekar Aradhya [Opens in a new window]
Daljit Singh
Affiliation:
Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager, Regulatory Science, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
Andrew Tyre
Affiliation:
Mathematical Modeler, Regulatory Science, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
Alejandro Perez-Jones
Affiliation:
Crop Physiology and Weed Control Lead, Plant Biotechnology, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
Jenny Krebel
Affiliation:
Controlled Environment Workflow Lead, Plant Biotechnology, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
John Willis
Affiliation:
North America Crop Protection Strategy Manager, Market Development, Bayer AG, Creve Coeur, MO, USA
Jeffrey Herrmann
Affiliation:
North America Crop Protection Strategy Lead, Market Development, Bayer AG, Creve Coeur, MO, USA
Tracy Klingaman
Affiliation:
Weed Management Program Lead, Crop Technology, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
Graham Head
Affiliation:
Head of Global Resistance Management, Regulatory Science, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
Chandrashekar Aradhya*
Affiliation:
Head of Herbicide Resistance Management, Regulatory Science, Bayer AG, Chesterfield, MO, USA
*
Corresponding author: Chandrashekar Aradhya; Email: Chandrashekar.aradhya@bayer.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide resistance in Palmer amaranth and waterhemp is on the rise and poses a great concern to growers in the United States. A multistate screening was conducted for these two weed species in the United States to assess their sensitivity to glufosinate, dicamba, and 2,4-D. The screening was designed to understand the weed sensitivity landscape and emerging trends in resistance evolution by testing each herbicide at its respective label rate and at half the label rate. A total of 303 weed seed accessions from 21 states representing 162 Palmer amaranth and 141 waterhemp seeds were collected from grower fields in 2019 and screened in greenhouse conditions. Statistical power of different sample sizes and probability of survivors in each accession were estimated for each species and herbicide treatment. Overall, the efficacy of glufosinate, dicamba, and 2,4-D against all these accessions was excellent, with greater than 90% average injury. The variability in herbicide injury, if any, was greater with half the label rate of 2,4-D in some Palmer amaranth accessions, while waterhemp accessions had exhibited variable sensitivity with half the label rate of dicamba and glufosinate. The study highlights the value of monitoring weeds for herbicide sensitivity across broader landscape and the importance of glufosinate, dicamba, and 2,4-D herbicides in managing troublesome weeds as part of a diversified weed control program integrated with other chemical, mechanical and cultural practices.

Keywords

Glufosinatedicamba24-DPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watsonwaterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. SauerPigweedsauxinsmonitoringherbicide tolerance traitcrops
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , December 2023 , pp. 606 - 616
Check for updates
Copyright
© Bayer AG, 2023. 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Vipan Kumar, Cornell University

*

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Anonymous (2020) Liberty Label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF CorporationGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2022a) XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology Label. St. Louis, MO: Bayer CropScience LPGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2022b) Enlist One with Colex-D Technology herbicide label. Indianapolis, IN: Corteva Agriscience LLCGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Busi, R, Bagavathiannan, MV, Martin, SL (2019) Herbicide resistance gene flow in weeds: under-estimated and under-appreciated. Agric Ecosyst Environ 283:e106566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Harker, KN (2017) Our top 10 herbicide-resistant weed management practices. Pest Manag Sci 73:1045–1052 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckie, HJ, Heap, IM, Smeda, RJ, Hall, LM (2000) Screening for herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Technol 14:428–445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Reboud, X (2009) Selecting for weed resistance: herbicide rotation and mixture. Weed Technol 23:363–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobadilla, LK, Giacomini, DA, Hager, AG, Tranel, PJ (2022) Characterization and inheritance of dicamba resistance in a multiple-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) accession from Illinois. Weed Sci 70:4–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgos, N, Tranel, P, Streibig, J, Davis, V, Shaner, D, Norsworthy, J, Riz, C (2013) Review: Confirmation of resistance to herbicides and evaluation of resistance levels. Weed Sci 61:4–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CABI (2019) CABI Invasive Species Compendium: Amaranthus tuberculatus (rough fruited water-hemp). Wallingford, UK: CABIGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM (2015) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in dicamba-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 29:758–770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho-Moore, P, Norsworthy, JK, González-Torralva, F, Hwang, J-I, Patel, JD, Barber, LT, Butts, TR, McElroy, JS (2022) Unraveling the mechanism of resistance in a glufosinate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accession. Weed Sci 70:370–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS (2020) Grand challenges in weed management. Front Agron 1:1–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comont, D, Lowe, C, Hull, R, Crook, L, Hicks, H, Onkokesung, N, Beffa, R, Childs, D, Edwards, R, Freckleton, R, Neve, P (2020) Evolution of generalist resistance to herbicide mixtures reveals a trade-off in resistance management. Nat Commun 11:3086 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crespo, R, Wingeyer, A, Borman, C, Bernards, M (2016) Baseline sensitivity of Nebraska waterhemp and Palmer amaranth to dicamba and 2,4-D. Agron J 108:1649–1655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconis, P, Ylvisaker, D (1979) Conjugate priors for exponential families. Ann Statist 7:269–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Mortensen, DA, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2011) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)-resistant crops and the potential for evolution of 2,4-D-resistant weeds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:E37 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[EPPO] European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2023) EPPO Global Database. Paris: EPPO https://gd.eppo.int/. Accessed: April 24, 2023Google Scholar
Evans, CM, Strom, SA, Riechers, DE, Davis, AS, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG (2019) Characterization of a waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population from Illinois resistant to herbicides from five site-of-action groups. Weed Technol 33:400–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, JA, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG, Schutte, B, Wu, C, Chatham, LA, Davis, AS (2016) Managing the evolution of herbicide resistance. Pest Manag Sci 72:74–80 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faleco, F, Oliveira, M, Arneson, N, Renz, M, Stoltenberg, D, Werle, R (2022) Multiple herbicide resistance in waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) accessions from Wisconsin. Weed Technol 36:597–608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, D (1993) Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80:27–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, RA (1948) Questions and answers #14. Am Stat 2:30–31 Google Scholar
Foster, DC, Steckel, LE (2022) Confirmation of dicamba-resistant Palmer amaranth in Tennessee. Weed Technol 36:777–780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, SN, Gressel, J, Mangel, M (1998) A revolving dose strategy to delay the evolution of both quantitative vs major monogene resistances to pesticides and drugs. Int J Pest Mgt 44:161–180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garetson, R, Singh, V, Singh, S, Dotray, P, Bagavathiannan, M (2019) Distribution of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in row crop production systems in Texas. Weed Technol 33:355–365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, JL, Curran, WS (1999). Herbicide mode of action and injury symptoms. BU-3832-S. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Extension Service Google Scholar
Hamberg, RC, Yadav, R, Owen, MDK, Licht, MA (2023) Differential susceptibility of Iowa waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) populations to 2,4-D, dicamba, and glufosinate. Can J Plant Sci https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2023-0081. Accessed: April 24, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2023) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: April 24, 2023Google Scholar
[HRAC] Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (2023) Herbicide Resistance Action Committee Home page. https://hracglobal.com/herbicide-resistance/confirming-resistance. Accessed: April 20, 2023Google Scholar
Kohrt, JR, Sprague, CL (2017) Response of a multiple-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) population to four HPPD-inhibiting herbicides applied alone and with atrazine. Weed Sci 65:534–545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V, Liu, R, Stahlman, PW (2020) Differential sensitivity of Kansas Palmer amaranth populations to multiple herbicides. Agron J 112:2152–2163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagator, M, Vogwill, T, Mead, A, Colegrave, N, Neve, P (2013) Herbicide mixtures at high doses slow the evolution of resistance in experimentally evolving accessions of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii . New Phytol 198:938–945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK (2019) Herbicide resistance traits in maize and soybean: Current status and future outlook. Plants 8:337 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neve, P, Powles, S (2005) High survival frequencies at low herbicide use rates in accessions of Lolium rigidum result in rapid evolution of herbicide resistance. Heredity 95:485–492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noguera, MM, Porri, A, Werle, IS, Heiser, J, Brändle, F, Lerchl, J, Murphy, B, Betz, M, Gatzmann, F, Penkert, M, Tuerk, C, Meyer, L, Roma-Burgos, N (2022) Involvement of glutamine synthetase 2 (GS2) amplification and overexpression in Amaranthus palmeri resistance to glufosinate. Planta 256:57 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Liewellyn, 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):31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, KK, Bradley, KW (2013) A screen of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in Missouri soybean fields and prediction of glyphosate resistance in future waterhemp accessions based on in-field observations and management practices. Weed Technol 27:656–663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, JL, Chatham, LA, Riggins, CW, Tranel, PJ, Bradley, KW (2015) Distribution of herbicide resistances and molecular mechanisms conferring resistance in Missouri waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) accessions. Weed Sci 63:336–345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shyam, C, Peterson, DE, Jugulam, M (2022) Resistance to 2,4-D in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Kansas is mediated by enhanced metabolism. Weed Sci 70:390–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, V, Garetson, R, McGinty, J, Dotray, P, Morgan, G, Nolte, S, Bagavathiannan, M (2019) Distribution of herbicide-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across row crop production systems in Texas. Weed Technol 34:1–11 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2017) Potential yield loss in corn, soybean, dry bean and sugar beet due to weed interference in North America. Weed Loss Committee Report. Westminster, CO: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Takano, HK, Dayan, FE (2020) Glufosinate-ammonium: a review of the current state of knowledge. Pest Manag Sci 76:3911–3925 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tehranchian, P, Norsworthy, JK, Powles, S, Bararpour, MT, Bagavathiannan, MV, Barber, T, Scott, RC (2017) Recurrent sublethal-dose selection for reduced susceptibility of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dicamba. Weed Sci 65:206–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, RL, Tyre, AJ, Pérez, M-E, Ackerman, JD (2021) Population projections from holey matrices: Using prior information to estimate rare transition events. Ecol Model 447:109526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, PJ (2021) Herbicide resistance in Amaranthus tuberculatus . Pest Manag Sci 77:43–54 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tranel, PJ, Trucco, F (2009) 21st century weed science: a call for Amaranthus genomics. Pages 53–81 in Stewart, CN Jr, Ed. Weedy and invasive plant genomics. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989) PP#8F3607: Glufosinate-ammonium (IGNITE) in or on soybean seed, apples, grapes, field corn (grain, forage, fodder and silage), nuts and almond hulls. Report of method validation of revised proposed enforcement methodology by Analytical Chemistry Section. Washington: US EPAGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Reregistration eligibility decision for 2,4-D. Case No. 0073. Washington: US EPAGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Reregistration eligibility decision for dicamba and associated salts. Case No. 0065. Washington: US EPAGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Reregistration eligibility decision for dicamba and associated salts. Washington: US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022a) Notice of Pesticide Registration. XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology (EPA registration number 264–1210). Washington: US EPAGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022b) Notice of Pesticide Registration. Engenia herbicide (EPA registration number 7969–472). Washington: US EPAGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022c) Notice of Pesticide Registration. A21472 Plus VaporGrip Technology (EPA registration number 100–1623). Washington: US EPAGoogle Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2020) Weed risk assessment for Amaranthus palmeri (Amaranthaceae)—Palmer’s amaranth. Washington: USDA-APHISGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2023). Surveys-Agricultural Chemical Use Program. Washington: USDA-NASS https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/ Accessed April 24, 2023Google Scholar
[USDC-NIST] U.S. Department of Commerce–National Institute of Standards and Technology (2012) Engineering statistics handbook. Washington: USDC-NIST https://doi.org/10.18434/M32189. Accessed: April 10, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2022) 2022 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 Screen Dataset. https://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2022-Weed-Survey-Broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: April 24, 2023Google Scholar
Vélez-Gavilán, J (2019) Amaranthus palmeri (Palmer amaranth). Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabicompendium.4649. Accessed: April 24, 2023Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Singh et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Singh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40.7 KB