Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T09:31:41.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increased absorption and translocation contribute to improved efficacy of dicamba to control early growth stage Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2019

Ivan Cuvaca ,
Randall Currie ,
Kraig Roozeboom ,
Jack Fry  and
Mithila Jugulam Open the ORCID record for Mithila Jugulam [Opens in a new window]
Ivan Cuvaca
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Randall Currie
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Kansas State University, Southwest Research–Extension Center, Garden City, KS, USA
Kraig Roozeboom
Affiliation:
Professor, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Jack Fry
Affiliation:
Professor, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Mithila Jugulam*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Mithila Jugulam, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Science, 1712 Claflin Road, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS66502. (Email: mithila@ksu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapid growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) poses a challenge for timely management of this weed. Dose–response studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 under field and greenhouse conditions near Garden City and Manhattan, KS, respectively, to evaluate the efficacy of dicamba to control ≤10-, 15-cm, and 30-cm-tall A. palmeri, which mimics three herbicide application timings: on-time application (Day 0) and 1- (Day 1) and 4-d (Day 4) delays. Visual injury rating and reduction in shoot biomass (% of nontreated), and mortality were assessed at 4 wk after treatment using a three- and four-parameter log-logistic model in R. Increasing dicamba doses increased A. palmeri control regardless of plant height in both the field and greenhouse studies. The results suggest that delaying application 1 (15 cm) and 4 d (30 cm) resulted in 2- and 27-fold increases in the effective dose of dicamba on A. palmeri, respectively, under field conditions. However, in the greenhouse, for the same level of A. palmeri control, more than 1- and 2-fold increases in dicamba dose, respectively, were required. Similarly, the effective dose of dicamba required for 50% reduction in A. palmeri shoot biomass (GR50) increased more than 4- and 8-fold or more than 1- and 2-fold when dicamba application was delayed by 1 (15 cm) and 4 d (30 cm), in the field or in the greenhouse, respectively. To understand the basis of increased efficacy of dicamba in controlling early growth stages of A. palmeri, dicamba absorption and translocation studies were conducted. Results indicate a significant reduction in dicamba absorption (7%) and translocation (15%) with increase in A. palmeri height. Therefore, increased absorption and translocation of dicamba results in increased efficacy in improving A. palmeri control at early growth stages.

Keywords

Dicamba absorption and translocationplant height
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 27 - 32
Copyright
© 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Chenxi Wu, Bayer U.S. – Crop Science

References

Anonymous (2016) WSSA survey ranks Palmer amaranth as the most troublesome weed in the U.S., galium as the most troublesome in canada. PRWeb Newswire, April 5, 2016Google Scholar
Bensch, CNN, Peterson, DJ, Horak, MJ (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 1:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, S, Ferrell, J, Rowland, D, Webster, T (2015) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) competition for water in cotton. Weed Sci 4: 928–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Aulakh, JS, Rosenbaum, K, Jhala, AJ (2015) Growth stage affects dose response of selected glyphosate-resistant weeds to premix of 2, 4-D choline and glyphosate (Enlist Duo™ Herbicide). J Agric Sci 11:1–10Google Scholar
Chang, FY, Vanden Born, WH (1968) Translocation of dicamba in Canada thistle. Weed Sci 16:176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, JC, Johnson, WG, Scharf, P, Smeda, RJ (2004) Late-emerging common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in conventional tillage corn. Weed Technol 4:999–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, C (1994) Dicamba: factsheet. J Pestic Ref 14:30–35Google Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of weed height and glufosinate plus 2, 4-D combinations on weed control in soybean with resistance to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 2:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmund, RM, York, AC (1987) Factors affecting postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025: spray volume, growth stage, and soil-applied alachlor and vernolate. Weed Sci 35:216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J (2017) Weather information for Garden City, 2016. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports 3(5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K (2010) Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Manag Sci 66:113–120Google ScholarPubMed
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: July, 29, 2019Google Scholar
Hedges, BK, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2018) Influence of glyphosate/dicamba application rate and timing on the control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed in glyphosate/dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 32:678–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughlin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoss, NE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE, Loughin, TM (2003) Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Weed Sci 51:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, HM (1958) The effect of day and night temperature on growth, foliar wax content, and cuticle development of velvet mesquite. Weeds 6:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, DL, York, AC, Griffin, JL, Clay, PA, Vidrine, PR, Reynolds, DB (1997) Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol 11:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, DD, Marshall, MW, Sanders, CH (2018) Efficacy of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate and glyphosate combinations on selected broadleaf weed heights. Am J Plant Sci 9:1321–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegode, GO, Fronning, BE (2005) Artemisia biennis (biennial wormwood) control is influenced by plant size and weed flora at time of herbicide application. Crop Prot 24:915–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R (1999) Recent developments in our understanding of the plant cuticle as a barrier to the foliar uptake of pesticides. Pest Sci 55:69–773.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Johnson, B (2013) Palmer Amaranth Biology, Identification, and Management. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Extension. Pp 1–2Google Scholar
Lemoine, R, La Camera, S, Atanassova, R, Dédaldéchamp, F, Allario, T, Pourtau, N, Bonnemain, JL, Laloi, M, Coutos-Thévenot, P, Maurousset, L, Faucher, M (2013) Source-to-sink transport of sugar and regulation by environmental factors. Front Plant Sci 4:272CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS (2002) Impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri) on corn (Zea mays) grain yield and yield and quality of forage. Weed Technol 3:532–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Horak, MJ, Boyer, J, Jr (2001) Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49:202–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Trooien, TP (2003) Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci 4:523–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menendez, J, Rojano-Delgado, M, De Prado, R (2014) Differences in herbicide uptake, translocation, and distribution as sources of herbicide resistance in weeds. ACS Symposium Series 1171:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT, Ikley, JT (2015) Herbicide program approaches for managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus and Amaranthus rudis) in future soybean-trait technologies. Weed Technol 4:716–729CrossRefGoogle 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 1:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, GD, Baumann, PA, Chandler, JM (2001) Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol 3:408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ou, J, Thompson, CR, Stahlman, PW, Bloedow, N, Jugulam, M (2018) Reduced translocation of glyphosate and dicamba in combination contributes to poor control of Kochia scoparia: evidence of herbicide antagonism. Sci Rep 8:5330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritz, C, Baty, F, Streibig, JC, Gerhard, D (2015) Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS ONE 10:e0146021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute Inc. (2011) SAS/ACCESS® 9.3 Interface to ADABAS: Reference. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sfiligoj, E (2015) Weeds to watch 2015: resistance remains riling. Croplife 178:10–12Google Scholar
Smith, D, Baker, R, Steele, G (2000) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 1:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L (2007) The dioecious Amaranthus spp.: here to stay. Weed Technol 21:567–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, S, Webster, T, Steckel, L (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 1:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, S (2014) Integrating weed and vegetable crop management with multifunctional air-propelled abrasive grits. Weed Technol 28:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar