Spray Interval, Application Order, and Plant Height Influences Control of Dicamba-Resistant Palmer amaranth

IF 1.3 3区 农林科学 Q3 AGRONOMY Weed Technology Pub Date : 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1017/wet.2024.9
Delaney C. Foster, Thomas C. Mueller, Lawrence E. Steckel
{"title":"Spray Interval, Application Order, and Plant Height Influences Control of Dicamba-Resistant Palmer amaranth","authors":"Delaney C. Foster, Thomas C. Mueller, Lawrence E. Steckel","doi":"10.1017/wet.2024.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Palmer amaranth, which is resistant to glyphosate and protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors, remains a threat to cotton and soybean production in Tennessee. This is partly due to the recent evolution of dicamba-resistant Palmer amaranth in West Tennessee, which further complicates weed management. Experiments were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to determine the best timing between sequential applications and in what order 2,4-D or dicamba should be used with glufosinate to control resistant Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth control increased when the interval between postemergence herbicide applications decreased from 21 to 7 days. At the 7-day interval in a dicamba-based system, the order of herbicides did not affect Palmer amaranth control. However, in a 2,4-D-based system, the greatest control was achieved when 2,4-D was applied first, followed by either 2,4-D or glufosinate. While weed height at the time of application had a significant effect on Palmer amaranth control with auxin herbicides, control was still unacceptable in the field at the labeled rates of dicamba or 2,4-D when applied to &lt;10 cm tall weeds (48% and 53%, respectively). Neither dicamba nor 2,4-D provided acceptable control of the Palmer amaranth populations evaluated. Sequential applications separated by 7 days provided better weed control than those separated by 21 days. Given that the better 7-day sequential treatments provided less than 90% control and resulted in more than 64,000 surviving Palmer amaranth ha<jats:sup>-1</jats:sup> suggests that relying solely on these herbicides for Palmer amaranth control is not a sustainable weed management strategy.","PeriodicalId":23710,"journal":{"name":"Weed Technology","volume":"282 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Weed Technology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2024.9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Palmer amaranth, which is resistant to glyphosate and protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors, remains a threat to cotton and soybean production in Tennessee. This is partly due to the recent evolution of dicamba-resistant Palmer amaranth in West Tennessee, which further complicates weed management. Experiments were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to determine the best timing between sequential applications and in what order 2,4-D or dicamba should be used with glufosinate to control resistant Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth control increased when the interval between postemergence herbicide applications decreased from 21 to 7 days. At the 7-day interval in a dicamba-based system, the order of herbicides did not affect Palmer amaranth control. However, in a 2,4-D-based system, the greatest control was achieved when 2,4-D was applied first, followed by either 2,4-D or glufosinate. While weed height at the time of application had a significant effect on Palmer amaranth control with auxin herbicides, control was still unacceptable in the field at the labeled rates of dicamba or 2,4-D when applied to <10 cm tall weeds (48% and 53%, respectively). Neither dicamba nor 2,4-D provided acceptable control of the Palmer amaranth populations evaluated. Sequential applications separated by 7 days provided better weed control than those separated by 21 days. Given that the better 7-day sequential treatments provided less than 90% control and resulted in more than 64,000 surviving Palmer amaranth ha-1 suggests that relying solely on these herbicides for Palmer amaranth control is not a sustainable weed management strategy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
喷洒间隔、施药顺序和植株高度对抗性麦草畏的帕尔默苋防治效果的影响
对草甘膦和原卟啉原氧化酶抑制剂具有抗性的帕尔默苋仍然威胁着田纳西州的棉花和大豆生产。部分原因是田纳西州西部最近出现了抗麦草畏的帕尔默苋,这使得杂草管理更加复杂。2021 年和 2022 年进行了实验,以确定连续施药的最佳时机,以及 2,4-D 或麦草畏与草铵膦的使用顺序,从而控制抗性帕尔默苋。当芽后除草剂施用间隔期从 21 天缩短到 7 天时,对帕尔默苋的控制能力会增强。在以麦草畏为基础的系统中,间隔期为 7 天时,除草剂的使用顺序不会影响对帕尔默苋的控制。然而,在以 2,4-D 为基础的系统中,先施用 2,4-D 后施用 2,4-D 或草铵膦的控制效果最好。虽然施药时的杂草高度对使用辅助除草剂控制帕尔默苋的效果有显著影响,但在田间,当对<10厘米高的杂草施用麦草畏或2,4-D(分别为48%和53%)时,其标注剂量的控制效果仍然不可接受。麦草畏和 2,4-D 都不能对所评估的帕尔默苋种群提供可接受的控制效果。相隔 7 天连续施药比相隔 21 天连续施药的除草效果更好。鉴于较好的 7 天连续施用除草剂的除草效果不到 90%,而存活的帕尔默苋的株数却超过了每公顷 64,000 株,这表明仅仅依靠这些除草剂来控制帕尔默苋并不是一种可持续的杂草管理策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Weed Technology
Weed Technology 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
21.40%
发文量
89
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Weed Technology publishes original research and scholarship in the form of peer-reviewed articles focused on understanding how weeds are managed. The journal focuses on: - Applied aspects concerning the management of weeds in agricultural systems - Herbicides used to manage undesired vegetation, weed biology and control - Weed/crop management systems - Reports of new weed problems -New technologies for weed management and special articles emphasizing technology transfer to improve weed control -Articles dealing with plant growth regulators and management of undesired plant growth may also be accepted, provided there is clear relevance to weed science technology, e.g., turfgrass or woody plant management along rights-of-way, vegetation management in forest, aquatic, or other non-crop situations. -Surveys, education, and extension topics related to weeds will also be considered
期刊最新文献
Target site mechanism confers resistance pattern of ACCase-inhibitors in bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fusca ssp. fascicularis) from California Response of stevia (Stevia rebaudiana) to reduced risk synthetic and nonsynthetic herbicides applied post-transplant Glyphosate-resistant and susceptible downy brome (Bromus tectorum) management with soil-applied residual herbicides Integrating Cover Crops and Herbicides for Weed Control in Soybean Effect of herbicide programs on control and seed production of multiple herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in corn resistant to 2,4-D/glufosinate/glyphosate
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1