International Scholarly Research Notices

International Scholarly Research Notices / 2012 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 131650 | https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/131650

Amy E. Hoffner, David L. Jordan, Aman Chandi, Alan C. York, E. James Dunphy, Wesley J. Everman, "Management of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max) with Sequential Applications of Herbicides", International Scholarly Research Notices, vol. 2012, Article ID 131650, 7 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/131650

Management of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max) with Sequential Applications of Herbicides

Academic Editor: O. Ferrarese-Filho
Received02 Oct 2012
Accepted01 Nov 2012
Published06 Dec 2012

Abstract

Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) is one of the most difficult weeds to control in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) in North Carolina. Research was conducted during 2010 and 2011 to determine if Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield were affected by soybean plant population and combinations of preemergence (PRE) herbicides followed by a single application of glufosinate postemergence (POST) versus multiple applications of glufosinate POST. Palmer amaranth was controlled more and soybean yield was greater when soybean was established at 483,000 plants in 3 of 4 experiments compared with soybean at 178,000 plants irrespective of herbicide treatments. In separate experiments, application of PRE herbicides followed by POST application of glufosinate or multiple POST applications of glufosinate provided variable Palmer amaranth control, although combinations of PRE and POST herbicides controlled Palmer amaranth the most and provided the greatest soybean yield. In 1 of 3 experiments, sequential applications of glufosinate were more effective than a single application. Yield was higher in 2 of 3 experiments when glufosinate was applied irrespective of timing of application when compared with the nontreated control. In the experiment where glufosinate was applied at various POST timings, multiple applications of the herbicide provided the best control and the greatest yield compared with single applications.

1. Introduction

Resistance of Palmer amaranth to acetolactate synthase (ALS-) inhibiting herbicides and glyphosate is well documented in North Carolina [13]. Controlling herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth can be challenging because alternatives to glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides require timely application [4, 5]. Row pattern and plant population can influence weed management in soybean [6, 7]. Herbicides that applied PRE or POST other than glyphosate are important in managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in soybean [810]. Under weed-free conditions, soybean at populations below those established in many fields in North Carolina yield as well as soybean at higher populations considered “standard” (exceeding 300,000 plants ha−1) (E. J. Dunphy, personal communication). Establishing soybean at lower populations can reduce production costs if yields are maintained. Results comparing the economic value of high soybean populations versus increasing the number of POST herbicides are mixed [1116]. Additional research is needed to determine if Palmer amaranth control is more effective when soybean is established at higher populations in glufosinate-resistant soybean.

Glufosinate-resistant soybean allows producers to apply glufosinate to control problematic weeds like Palmer amaranth [17]. Sequential programs, either as PRE followed by POST applications or multiple POST applications of herbicides, can be effective in controlling weeds, especially glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth [18]. Timely applications of glufosinate in glufosinate-resistant soybean can be effective in controlling glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible Palmer amaranth [17]. Reed et al. [19] reported that multiple applications of glufosinate in a total POST herbicide program controlled Palmer amaranth effectively. However, most recommendations by Cooperative Extension Service representatives include sequential applications of PRE herbicides followed by timely POST herbicides, especially in fields where glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth is suspected.

Given that Palmer amaranth has become more prevalent in North Carolina, especially herbicide-resistant biotypes, research is needed to better define the role of seeding rate on weed management programs for soybean. Determining if sequential applications of PRE and POST herbicides are as effective as multiple POST applications of glufosinate alone will be important, especially in terms of response to soybean population. Research is also needed to better define the time between multiple applications of glufosinate. Therefore, research was conducted in North Carolina to compare Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield with combinations of PRE and POST herbicides applied to glufosinate-resistant soybean at two soybean populations and to determine the most effective timing of multiple POST applications of glufosinate.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Interactions of Plant Population and Herbicide Program

The experiment was conducted in North Carolina in two separate fields during each year (2010 and 2011) at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station located near Rocky Mount with natural and relatively high populations of Palmer amaranth. Populations of weed species other than Palmer amaranth were low and inconsistent across fields compared with density and distribution of Palmer amaranth. One field consisted of a Lynchburg fine sandy loam soil (fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic, and Aeric Paleaquults) while the second field was a Nahunta loam soil (fine-silty, siliceous, thermic, and Aeric Paleaquults). Corn (Zea mays L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) preceded soybean on these respective soil series. Soybean cultivar LL 595 N (Southern States Cooperative, Inc., Farmville, NC 27828, USA) was planted between May 24 and June 7 after disking and field cultivation in rows spaced 20 cm apart in plots 12 rows wide by 9 m.

Treatments consisted of two levels of soybean population (178,000 plants ha−1 versus 483,000 plants ha−1) and four levels of herbicide program. Herbicide treatments included glufosinate POST applied 2 weeks after planting (WAP), glufosinate applied sequentially 2 and 4 WAP, S-metolachlor plus fomesafen applied PRE, and S-metolachlor plus fomesafen applied PRE followed by glufosinate POST 4 WAP. A nontreated control also was included. S-metolachlor plus fomesafen (Prefix herbicide, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC 27709, USA) was applied at 1200 + 270 g ae ha−1 while glufosinate-ammonium (Ignite 280 herbicide, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709) was applied at 670 g ae ha−1. Herbicides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 145 L ha−1 using 8002 regular flat-fan nozzles (Teejet Corporation, Wheaton, IL 60187, USA) at 275 kPa.

Palmer amaranth was 2 to 6 cm in height when glufosinate was applied POST. Visible estimates of percent Palmer amaranth control were recorded 6 WAP using a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is no control and 100 is complete control. Soybean was machine harvested, and final yield was adjusted to 15% moisture.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with treatments replicated four times. Data for Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield were subjected to ANOVA using the Proc GLM procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, GLM Procedure, Cary, NC 27513, USA) for a four (site/year combinations) by a four (herbicide program) factorial arrangement of treatments. The nontreated control was not included in this analysis because soybean was not harvestable when herbicide was not included. Means of significant main effects and interactions were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD test at .

2.2. Efficacy of Sequential Herbicide Programs in a Single Plant Population

Two experiments were conducted with either sequential applications of PRE followed by POST herbicides or multiple applications of glufosinate only. The experiment with sequential applications of PRE and POST herbicides was conducted during 2010 and 2011 at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station near Rocky Mount in the fields discussed previously (Nahunta soil series during 2010 and Lynchburg soil series during 2011). The experiment with multiple applications of glufosinate was conducted during 2010 on a Norfolk loam sand soil (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic, and Typic Kandiuldults) and in two separate fields during 2011 on both the Nahunta and Lynchburg soil series described previously. The glufosinate-resistant soybean cultivar LL 595N (Southern States Cooperative, Inc., Farmville, NC 27828, USA) was planted after disking and field cultivation in rows spaced 20 cm apart with a final plant population of 480,000 plants ha−1. Plot size was the same as described previously.

In the experiment with sequential application of PRE and POST herbicides, treatments consisted of seven levels of PRE herbicides, including no PRE, flumioxazin (Valor SX, Valent USA Corporation, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, USA) alone at 70 g ai ha−1 or with chlorimuron (Valor XLT herbicide, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE 19898, USA) at 21 g ai ha−1, the sodium salt of fomesafen (Reflex herbicide, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC 27709, USA) at 280 g ae ha−1, -metolachlor (Dual II Magnum, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC 27709, USA) at 1500 g ai ha−1, -metolachlor plus fomesafen (Prefix herbicide, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC 27709, USA) at  g ha−1, and sulfentrazone plus cloransulam-methyl (Authority First herbicide, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA) at  g ai ha−1, respectively. Each of these PRE herbicides was followed by no POST herbicide or a single application of glufosinate ammonium (Ignite 280 herbicide, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA) at 670 g ha−1 2 WAP or sequential applications of glufosinate at 400 g ha−1 at 2 and 4 WAP. In the experiment with only POST applications of glufosinate, treatments consisted of glufosinate applied 2 WAP at 400 and 670 g ha−1 (referred to as POST 1) followed by no additional applications of glufosinate or followed by a second application of glufosinate at 400 g ha−1 at 3 WAP (referred to as POST 2) or 4 WAP (referred to as POST 3). Treatments also included three sequential applications of glufosinate at 400 g ha−1.

Palmer amaranth size ranged from 5 to 10 cm in height when glufosinate was applied in the experiment with PRE and POST herbicides. In the experiment with multiple applications of glufosinate only, Palmer amaranth height was 5 to 10 cm at POST 1, 5 to 20 cm at POST 2, and 5 to 40 cm at POST 3. The range in size of Palmer amaranth reflected differences in emergence of weeds caused by PRE herbicides prior to the POST application in experiment. In both experiments, glufosinate was applied using the procedures described previously.

Percent Palmer amaranth control was estimated visually and was recorded 10 WAP in both experiments as described previously. Soybean yield was determined in each plot and adjusted to a final moisture of 15%.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Data for Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield were subjected to ANOVA using the Proc GLM procedure in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC 27513, USA) considering the factorial arrangement of treatments. Means of significant main effects and interactions were separated using Fisher’s Protected LSD test at .

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Interactions of Plant Population and Herbicide Program

Interactions of experiment (site/year combination) by soybean population and experiment by herbicide program were significant for both Palmer amaranth control ( and , resp.) and soybean yield ( and 0.0344, resp.). The interaction of experiment by soybean population by herbicide program was not significant for Palmer amaranth control ( ) and soybean yield ( ). Additionally, the interaction of soybean population by herbicide program was not significant for these parameters ( and 0.2719, resp.).

Palmer amaranth was controlled more effectively when soybean was established at the higher seeding rate by 11 to 13 percentage points at 3 of 4 locations (Table 1). At a fourth location control was numerically higher by 6 percentage points at the higher plant population. Soybean yield was higher in 3 of 4 experiments when established at the higher population (Table 1). However, there was some discrepancy in Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield among experiments when comparing soybean population. The relatively low soybean yields on the Nahunta soil series during 2010 due to dry weather most likely minimized the possibility of separating yields based on Palmer amaranth control. The higher soybean yield during 2010 on the Lynchburg soil series or during 2011 on the Nahunta soil series most likely reflected differences in Palmer amaranth control. On the Lynchburg soil series during 2011 there was a slight but nonstatistical difference in Palmer amaranth control but a clear increase in yield at the higher plant population. Other factors could have contributed to higher yields at a higher soybean population that are not related to weed control.


YearSoil seriesPalmer amaranth controlSoybean yield
Soybean plant populationbSoybean plant populationb
LowHighLowHigh
% kg ha−1

2010Nahunta5769*220430
2010Lynchburg8093*7201190*
2011Nahunta8293*26403710*
2011Lynchburg838938104500*

aIndicates a significant difference at within an experiment comparing low and high plant populations for Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield. Data are pooled over herbicide programs.
bThe low soybean population was approximately 178,000 plants ha−1. The high soybean plant population was approximately 483,000 plants ha−1.

Considerable variation in Palmer amaranth control was noted among herbicide treatments across experiments (Table 2). Control by multiple applications of glufosinate exceeded that of a single application of glufosinate in 3 of 4 experiments. Sequential applications of glufosinate only and -metolachlor plus fomesafen PRE controlled Palmer amaranth similarly in 3 of 4 experiments. Applying glufosinate following S-metolachlor plus fomesafen was more effective than S-metolachlor plus fomesafen alone, sequential applications of glufosinate, and a single application of glufosinate in 1, 3, and 4 experiments, respectively.


Palmer amaranth controlSoybean yield
Soil seriesSoil series
Herbicide program2010201120102011
NahuntaLynchburgNahuntaLynchburgNahuntaLynchburgNahuntaLynchburg
%kg ha−1

Glufosinate46 c74 c81 b71 c230 a770 b2640 c3840 b
Glufosinate followed by glufosinate62 b100 a74 b85 b360 a1130 a3170 b4120 ab
-metolachlor plus fomesafen70 b93 ab95 a89 ab360 a1110 ab3020 bc4220 ab
-metolachlor plus fomesafen 100 a87 b100 a99 a370 a950 ab3870 a4420 a
followed by glufosinate

aMeans within a year and field followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at . Data are pooled over soybean plant population.

Soybean yield during 2010 on the Nahunta soil series was low and did not differ among herbicide programs, most likely because yield was relatively low compared to the Lynchburg soil series during 2010 and both soil series during 2011 (Table 2). On the Lynchburg series during 2010, soybean yield was higher following sequential applications of glufosinate compared with a single application; yield with S-metolachlor plus fomesafen alone or followed by glufosinate was intermediate. On the Nahunta soil series during 2011, soybean yield with the more intensive program of S-metolachlor plus fomesafen followed by glufosinate yield exceeded yield following the other herbicide programs. On the Lynchburg soil series, yield with this program also was higher than a single application of glufosinate.

Although some variation in Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield was noted when comparing herbicide programs, lack of a soybean population by herbicide program interaction for these parameters suggests that higher soybean populations will increase Palmer amaranth control and soybean yield irrespective of herbicide program.

3.2. Efficacy of Sequential Herbicide Programs in a Single Plant Population

The interaction of year by PRE by POST herbicide was significant for Palmer amaranth control ( ) and for soybean yield ( ). Therefore, data were analyzed by year. The interaction of PRE by POST was not significant for Palmer amaranth control ( ) but was significant for soybean yield ( ) during 2010. However, the interaction of PRE by POST herbicides was significant for both Palmer amaranth control ( ) and soybean yield ( ).

Palmer amaranth control by flumioxazin alone or with chlorimuron was 93 to 98% while fomesafen alone or with -metolachlor provided 77 to 80% control (Table 3). Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam methyl controlled Palmer amaranth 66%, while S-metolachlor provided only 56% control. Whitaker et al. [20] found similar results for Palmer amaranth control with flumioxazin and fomesafen PRE.


HerbicidesHerbicide rate Palmer amaranth control Soybean yield
g ha−1%kg ha−1

PRE herbicides
 None29 e1150 c
 Flumioxazin70098 a1460 b
 Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam methyl28 + 3666 cd1450 b
-metolachlor plus fomesafen1200 + 27077 c1680 a
 Flumioxazin plus chlorimuron70 + 2193 ab1420 b
 Fomesafen28080 bc1570 ab
-metolachlor150056 d1500 ab
POST herbicides
 None64 b1500 a
 Glufosinate67073 a1340 b
 Glufosinate then glufosinate400 then 40076 a1530 a

aMeans within a treatment factor (PRE or POST herbicides) for each parameter followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at . Data for PRE herbicides are pooled over levels of POST herbicides. Data for POST herbicides are pooled over levels of PRE herbicides.

Palmer amaranth control was similar when glufosinate was applied either once or sequentially (Table 3). Lack of a difference in single and sequential applications most likely reflects limited weed emergence after the first POST application and rapid closure of the soybean canopy.

All PRE herbicides increased soybean yield during 2010 compared with the no-PRE herbicide control (Table 3). Yield of soybean receiving -metolachlor plus fomesafen exceeded that of soybean treated with flumioxazin alone, sulfentrazone plus cloransulam methyl, or flumioxazin plus chlorimuron. Surprisingly, yield following a single application of glufosinate was lower than soybean yield without a POST application of glufosinate or soybean receiving multiple applications of glufosinate.

Several differences in Palmer amaranth control among PRE herbicides were observed during 2011, especially in absence of glufosinate (Table 4). Flumioxazin, flumioxazin plus chlorimuron, -metolachlor plus fomesafen, and fomesafen alone provided the best control. Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam-methyl and S-metolachlor alone provided intermediate control between the most effective PRE herbicides and the nontreated control. When glufosinate was applied only once, no difference in control among PRE herbicides was observed.


PRE herbicidesPRE herbicide rate g ha−1Palmer amaranth control
Glufosinate rate (kg ha−1)
00.670.40 then 0.40
%

None0 e88 a–d81 bcd
Flumioxazin70094 abc100 a100 a
Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam methyl280 + 3680 cd100 a93 a–d
-metolachlor plus fomesafen1200 + 27090 a–d96 abc97 abc
Flumioxazin plus chlorimuron70 + 21100 a100 a96 abc
Fomesafen28091 a–d100 a98 ab
-metolachlor150076 d91 a–d91 a–d

aMeans followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at .

There were no significant differences in soybean yield among PRE herbicide treatments when glufosinate was applied, regardless of the number of glufosinate applications (Table 5). In the absence of glufosinate, soybean yield following fomesafen, -metolachlor, and sulfentrazone plus cloransulam methyl was intermediate between the nontreated control and flumioxazin alone or with chlorimuron or -metolachlor plus fomesafen.


PRE herbicidesPRE herbicide rate g ha−1Soybean yield
Glufosinate rate (kg ha−1)
00.670.40 then 0.40
kg ha−1

None1340 e3800 abc3850 abc
Flumioxazin7003940 ab3500 a–d3770 a–d
Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam methyl28 + 362880 d3850 abc3740 a–d
-metolachlor plus fomesafen1200 + 2703400 a–d3550 a–d4090 a
Flumioxazin plus chlorimuron70 + 213720 a–d4000 ab3870 abc
Fomesafen2803130 bcd3890 abc4240 a
-metolachlor15003020 cd3350 a–d3530 a–d

aMeans followed by the same letter are not different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at .

In the second experiment with total POST applications of glufosinate applied sequentially 2, 3, and 4 WAP, the interaction of glufosinate rate with sequence of glufosinate application was not significant for Palmer amaranth control ( ) or soybean yield ( ). Although glufosinate rate as a main effect or the interaction with year or sequence of glufosinate application was not significant ( ), the interaction of experiment by sequence of glufosinate application was significant for Palmer amaranth control ( ) and soybean yield ( ). In 2010, multiple applications of glufosinate controlled Palmer amaranth 97 to 99% than a single application 82% (Table 6). In systems with two applications, timing of the second application had no effect on Palmer amaranth control. Also, Palmer amaranth control was similar with two and three applications. Soybean yield was not affected by the number of glufosinate applications. However, glufosinate POST increased yield over nontreated soybean. During 2011, on the Nahunta soil series, Palmer amaranth control was similar with all glufosinate applications and was at least 97%. In the second field on a Lynchburg soil series, control was greater where glufosinate was applied sequentially compared with a single application.


Palmer amaranth control or soybean yield
Glufosinate application timing (WAP)2011
2342010bNahunta soil seriesLynchburg soil series

Palmer amaranth control

YesNoNo82 b98 a89 b
YesNoYes97 a100 a100 a
YesYesNo99 a98 a100 a
YesYesYes98 a100 a100 a

Soybean yield (kg ha−1)

YesNoNo1040 a2950 b3030 a
YesNoYes1020 a3350 ab2990 a
YesYesNo970 a3360 a2940 a
YesYesYes1240 a3030 ab2530 b
NoNoNo600 b2780 b870 c

aMeans within a year or year and soil series combination for each parameter followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD test at . Data are pooled over glufosinate rates. Data for the nontreated control were not included in the statistical analyses to allow consideration of factorial treatment structure.
bNorfolk soil series.

During 2011, on the Nahunta soil series, soybean receiving a single application of glufosinate and nontreated soybean yielded similarly. Yield was increased when a second application of glufosinate was made 3 WAP (Table 6). On the Lynchburg series during 2011, soybean yield exceeded that of the nontreated control when glufosinate was applied irrespective of sequence of application. However, soybean yield was lower with three applications of glufosinate compared with two applications only. Given Palmer amaranth control was high with the program containing three applications, lower yield most likely reflected soybean injury. The total amount of glufosinate applied in this treatment exceeds the manufacturer’s recommendations [21].

4. Conclusions

The most consistent Palmer amaranth control was obtained with multiple applications of herbicides either as PRE followed by POST or POST applications of glufosinate. Additionally, timing of glufosinate was not critical when two applications were made within the first 4 weeks after planting. Concern for overreliance on protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO-) inhibiting herbicides and subsequent development of PPO-resistant biotypes in fields with glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth has been expressed [9]. Results from this research indicate that while treatments including PPO herbicides controlled Palmer amaranth more effectively when applied alone for the entire season, the PRE herbicide treatment with a non-PPO mode of action, in this case S-metolachlor alone, performed as well in a comprehensive program including one or two applications of glufosinate. While multiple applications of glufosinate are currently effective in controlling Palmer amaranth as described here and from other research [1719], the long-term sequential application of PRE and POST herbicides with a greater diversity of modes of action is the best approach when considering herbicide resistance management.

Conflict of Interests

None of the authors have any conflict of interests in terms of the products mentioned in the paper.

Acknowledgments

The North Carolina Soybean Growers Association and Bayer CropScience provided partial funding for this research. Appreciation is expressed to Jamie Hinton, Rick Seagroves, Dewayne Johnson, Peter Eure, and staff at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station for assistance with this research.

References

  1. I. Heap, “The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds,” 2012, http://www.weedscience.org/In.asp. View at: Google Scholar
  2. J. R. Whitaker, Distribution, biology, and management of glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth in North Carolina [PhD dissertation], North Carolina State University, 2009.
  3. A. E. Hoffner, D. L. Jordan, and A. C. York, “Geographical distribution of herbicide resistance in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) populations across North Carolina,” in Proceedings of the 7th International IPM Symposium: IPM on the World Stage, pp. 27–29, Memphis, Tenn, USA, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  4. A. S. Culpepper, A. C. York, A. W. MacRae, and J. Kichler, “Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth response to weed management programs in Roundup Ready and Liberty Link Cotton,” in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National Cotton Council, Nashville, Tenn, USA, January 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  5. L. M. Sosnoskie, J. M. Kichler, R. D. Wallace, and A. S. Culpepper, “Multiple resistance in Palmer amaranth to glyphosate and pyrithiobac confirmed in Georgia,” Weed Science, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 321–325, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. D. B. Harder, C. L. Sprague, and K. A. Renner, “Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return,” Weed Technology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 744–752, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. G. T. Place, S. C. Reberg-Horton, J. E. Dunphy, and A. N. Smith, “Seeding rate effects on weed control and yield for organic soybean production,” Weed Technology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 497–502, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. T. C. Mueller, P. D. Mitchell, B. G. Young, and A. S. Culpepper, “Proactive versus reactive management of glyphosate-resistant or -tolerant weeds,” Weed Technology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 924–933, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. D. K. Owen, “Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds and weed shifts: weed species in glyphosate-resistant crops,” Pest Management Science, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 377–387, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. D. R. Shaw, M. D. Owen, P. M. Dixon et al., “Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States—part 1: introduction to 2006–2008,” Pest Management Science, vol. 25, pp. 183–191, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  11. D. A. Guillermo, P. Pedersen, and R. G. Hartzler, “Soybean seeding rate effects on weed management,” Weed Technology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. O. W. Howe and L. R. Oliver, “Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunose) interference,” Weed Science, vol. 35, pp. 185–193, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  13. G. R. W. Nice, N. W. Buehring, and D. R. Shaw, “Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to shading, soybean (Glycine max) row spacing, and population in three management systems,” Weed Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 155–162, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  14. J. K. Norsworthy and J. R. Frederick, “Reduced seeding rate for glyphosate-resistant, drilled soybean on the southeastern Coastal Plain,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 1282–1288, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  15. J. K. Norsworthy and L. R. Oliver, “Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin,” Weed Technology, vol. 15, pp. 284–292, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  16. R. J. Kratochvil, J. T. Pearce, and M. R. Harrison Jr., “Row spacing and seeding rate effects on glyphosate-resistant soybean for mid-Atlantic production systems,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 1029–1038, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  17. E. Coetzer, K. Al-Khatib, and D. E. Peterson, “Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max),” Weed Technology, vol. 16, pp. 326–331, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  18. A. S. Culpepper, A. C. York, and L. E. Steckel, “Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth management in cotton,” in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, vol. 64, p. 226, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  19. J. D. Reed, P. A. Dotray, and J. W. Keeling, “Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) management in Glytol + LibertyLink cotton,” in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, vol. 64, p. 260, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  20. J. R. Whitaker, A. C. York, D. L. Jordan, and A. S. Culpepper, “Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems,” Weed Technology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 403–410, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. Ignite 280 herbicide label. Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2012.

Copyright © 2012 Amy E. Hoffner et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

1670 Views | 602 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.