Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T20:52:12.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Integrated pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) management in glufosinate-resistant soybean with a cover crop, narrow row widths, row-crop cultivation, and herbicide program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Marshall M. Hay*
Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
J. Anita Dille
Professors, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Dallas E. Peterson
Professors, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Author for correspondence: Marshall M. Hay, Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center, 1712 Claflin Road, Manhattan, KS, 66506. E-mail:


Successful pigweed management requires an integrated strategy to delay the development of resistance to any single control tactic. Field trials were implemented during 2017 and 2018 in three counties in Kansas on dryland (limited rainfall, nonirrigated), glufosinate-resistant soybean. The objective was to assess pigweed control with combinations of a winter wheat cover crop (CC), three soybean row widths (76, 38, and 19 cm), row-crop cultivation 2.5 weeks after planting (WAP), and an herbicide program to develop integrated pigweed management recommendations. All combinations of the four components were assessed by 16 treatments. All treatments with the herbicide program resulted in excellent (>97%) pigweed control and were analyzed separately from the other components. Treatments containing row-crop cultivation reduced pigweed density and biomass 3 and 8 WAP in all locations compared with the 76-cm row width plus no CC treatment. CC impacts were mixed. In Riley County, Palmer amaranth density and biomass were reduced; in Reno County, no additional Palmer amaranth control was observed; in Franklin County, the CC had greater waterhemp density and biomass compared with the treatments containing no CC. Narrow row widths achieved the most consistent results of all cultural components when data were pooled across locations: Decreasing row widths from 76 to 38 cm resulted in a 23% reduction in pigweed biomass 8 WAP and decreasing row width from 38 to 19 cm achieved a 15% reduction. Row-crop cultivation should be incorporated where possible as a mechanical option to manage pigweed, and narrow row widths should be used to suppress late-season pigweed growth when feasible. Inconsistent pigweed control from CC was achieved and should be given special consideration before implementation. The integral use of these components with an herbicide program as a system should be recommended to achieve the best pigweed control and reduce the risk of developing herbicide resistance.

Research Article
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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.)


Arguez, A, Durre, I, Applequist, S, Squires, M, Vose, R, Yin, X, Bilotta, R (2010) NOAA’s U.S. climate normals (1981–2010). Accessed: January 9, 2018Google Scholar
Ball, DF (1964) Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of organic matter and organic carbon in non-calcareous soils. J. Soil Sci. 15:8492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, HD, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Popp, M (2015) Effect of row spacing, seeding rate, and herbicide program in glufosinate-resistant soybean on Palmer amaranth management. Weed Technol 3:390404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD (1995) Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci 35:12471258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG (2004) Weed biology and management. Pages 883918 in Soybeans: improvement, production, and uses. Boerma, HR and Specht, JE eds. Agronomy Monograph 16. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Doll, JD, Proost, RT, Visocky, MR (1995) Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron J 87:507512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Gunsolus, JL, Ralston, DF (1992) Integrated weed Management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron J 84:973978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Sandell, LD, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Loux, MM, Bradley, KW, Conley, SP, Stoltenberg, DE, Arriaga, FJ, Davis, VM (2016) Management of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean in the Midwest and mid-south. Weed Technol 30:355365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Ganie, ZA, Jhala, AJ (2018) Overlapping residual herbicides for control of photosystem (PS) II- and 4-hydroxypenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibitor resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) in glyphosate-resistant maize. Front Plant Sci 8:2231, 10.3389/fpls.2017.02231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelius, CD, Bradley, KW (2017) Influence of cover crop species on winter and summer annual weed emergence in soybean. Weed Technol 31:503513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2009) New and old soybean cultivar responses to plant density and intercepted light. Crop Sci 49:22252232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVore, JD, Norsworthy, JK, Brye, KR (2013) Influence of deep tillage, a rye cover crop, and various soybean production systems on Palmer amaranth emergence in soybean. Weed Technol 27:263270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Fox, GC, Swanton, CJ (1996) Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:126132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A, Hamill, AS, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1995) Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, JA, Mortensen, DA, Martin, AR (1999). Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47:8189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J, Calhoun, R, Knori, M, Lollato, R, Cruppe, G (2014) Fall forage production and date of first hollow stem in winter wheat varieties during the 2013–2014 crop year. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Publication No. CR-2141.Google Scholar
Edwards, JT, Purcell, LC, Karcher, DE (2005) Soybean yield and biomass responses to increasing plant population among diverse maturity groups: II. Light interception and utilization. Crop Sci 1770–1777Google Scholar
Elmore, RW (1998) Soybean cultivar responses to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J Prod Agric 11:273331CrossRefGoogle 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 72:7480CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forcella, F and Lindstrom, MJ (1988) Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci. 36:500503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Accessed March 1, 2019Google 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 57:644651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, TN, Coble, HD, Wax, LM (1987) Weed control. Pages 429460 In Wilcox, JR, ed. Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. Madison: ASA, CSSA, SSSAGoogle Scholar
Keene, CL, Curran, WS (2016) Optimizing high-residue cultivation timing and frequency in reduced-tillage soybean and corn. Agron J 108:18971906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evan, SP, Mainz, M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:666673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, MM, Dobbels, AF, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Young, BG, Spaunhorst, DJ, Norsworthy, JK, Palhano, M, Steckel, LE (2017) Influence of cover crops on management of Amaranthus species in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 31:487495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, CL, Marschner, CA, Caldwell, BA, DiTommaso, A (2016) Weed mortality caused by row-crop cultivation in organic corn-soybean-spelt cropping systems. Weed Technol 30:648654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, L, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance management strategies for Palmer amaranth in cotton. Weed Technol 25:335343CrossRefGoogle 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 Spec 31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, MDK, Beckie, JF, Leeson, JY, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE (2014) Integrated pest management and weed management in the United States and Canada. Pest Manag Sci 71:357376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, EJ, Gebhardt, M, Stritzke, JF (1965) Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, DE (1999) The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol 13:632635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J of Soil and Water Conservation 66: doi:10.2480/jwsc.66.4.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, LC (2000) Soybean canopy coverage and light interception measurements using digital imagery. Crop Sci 40:834837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, LC, Bass, RA, Reaper, III JD, Vories, ED (2002) Radiation use efficiency and biomass production in different plant population densities. Crop Sci 42:172177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Refsell, DE, Hartzler, RG (2009) Effect of tillage on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and vertical distribution of seed in the soil. Weed Technol 23:129133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, CI (1969) Removal of excess salt in cation exchange capacity determinations. Soil Sci 93:8793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Jhala, AJ (2018) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in no-tillage conventional (non-genetically engineered) soybean using overlapping residual herbicide programs. Weed Technol 33:95105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, JL, Myers, DB, Bradley, KW (2015) Influence of soybean seeding rate, row spacing, and herbicide programs on the control of resistant waterhemp in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:169176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Lessons learned from the history of herbicide resistance. Weed Sci 62:427431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shergill, LS, Barlow, BR, Bish, MD, Bradley, KW (2018) Investigations of 2,4-D and multiple herbicide resistance in a Missouri waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population. Weed Sci 66:386394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibbles, RM, Weber, CR (1966) Interception of solar radiation interception, and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Sci 5:575577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, AN, Reberg-Horton, CS, Place, TG, Meijer, AD, Arellano, C, Mueller, PJ (2011) Rolled rye mulch for weed suppression in organic no-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci 59:224231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in corn (Zea mays) with single preemergence and sequential applications of residual herbicides. Weed Technol 16:755761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Rosecrance, RC (2003) Mechanical versus herbicidal strategies for killing a hairy vetch cover crop and controlling weeds in minimum-tillage corn production. Am J Alt Agric 18:95102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2015 Baseline survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Survey Data Set. Accessed May 22, 2019Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ, Schweizer, EE, Wilson, RG, Wiles, LJ, Westra, P (1998) Impact of timing and frequency of in-row cultivation for weed control in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 12:548553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Scully, BT, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS (2013) Winter cover crops influence Amaranthus palmeri establishment. Crop Protection 52:130135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, MS, Reberg-Horton, SC, Mirsky, SB (2014) Cultural strategies for managing weeds and soil moisture in cover crop based no-till soybean production. Weed Sci 62:501511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yelverton, FH, Coble, HD (1991) Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:169174CrossRefGoogle Scholar