Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:18:00.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glufosinate Efficacy on Amaranthus Species in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Elmé Coetzer ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Dallas E. Peterson
Elmé Coetzer
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate the efficacy of glufosinate on Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, and common waterhemp at different growth stages in soybean planted at early, normal, and late dates. At 2, 4, and 8 wk after treatment, common waterhemp control was greater than Palmer amaranth and redroot pigweed control with single glufosinate applications of 410 g ai/ha at 2- to 5-, 7- to 10-, or 15- to 18-cm Amaranthus height or with two sequential applications of 293 g/ha at 2- to 5-cm height and 2 wk later. Only the sequential applications of 410 and 293 g/ha resulted in more than 80% control of Palmer amaranth and redroot pigweed, but all five treatments controlled common waterhemp more than 80%. All glufosinate treatments reduced the dry weight of all Amaranthus species by more than 65%. However, the sequential applications resulted in the greatest dry weight reductions.

Keywords

Glufosinatecommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer #3 AMATAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats. # AMAPAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrEnvironmental conditionsherbicide-tolerant soybeanpostemergence herbicideALS, Acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18)OM, organic matterRH, relative humidityWAT, weeks after treatment

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 326 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 147–149.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33: 139–147.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 179–184.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Research and Extension. Manhattan, KS: Weather Data Library, Kansas State University. Web page: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/. Assessed: July 17, 2000.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in Canada and United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society America Weed Loss Committee. 403 p.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in Amaranthus species as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci. 49: 8–13.Google Scholar
Cole, D. J. 1983. The effects of environmental factors on the metabolism of herbicides in plants. In Van Oorshot, J.L.P., ed. Aspects of Applied Biology 4. Influence of Environmental Factors on Herbicide Performance and Crop and Weed Biology. Wellesbourne, U.K.: Association Applied Biology. pp. 245–252.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Introduction of amino acid biosynthesis. In Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall. pp. 276–278.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of Amaranthus (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44: 126–132.Google Scholar
Droge, W., Broer, I., and Puhler, A. 1992. Transgenic plants containing the phosphinothricin-N-acetyl transferase gene metabolize the herbicide Lphosphinothricin (glufosinate) differently from untransformed plants. Planta 18: 142–151.Google Scholar
Gaeddert, J. W., Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Control and cross resistance of an acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Weed Technol. 11: 132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, H. R., Nyfeller, A., and Green, D. H. 1983. The influence of rainfall, temperature, humidity and light on soil- and foliar-applied herbicides. In Caseley, J. C., ed. Aspects of Applied Biology 4. Influence of Environmental Factors on Herbicide Performance and Crop and Weed Biology. Wellesbourne, U.K.: Association Applied Biology. pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroanaline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6: 587–591.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2000. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Web page: www.weedscience.com. Accessed: May 2, 2000.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotype of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 192–195.Google Scholar
Hull, H. M. 1970. Leaf structure as related to absorption of pesticides and other compounds. In Gunther, A. and Gunther, J. D., eds. Residue Reviews. New York: Springer. pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42: 523–527.Google Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9: 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. E. 1999. The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol. 13: 632–635.Google Scholar
Price, C. E. 1983. The effect of environment on foliage uptake and translocation of herbicides. In Van Oorshot, J.L.P., ed. Aspects of Applied Biology 4. Influence on Environmental Factors on Herbicide Performance and Crop and Weed Biology. Wellesbourne, U.K.: Association Applied Biology. pp. 157–169.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. L. and Schafer, D. W. 1997. The Statistical Sleuth. A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press. pp. 91–97.Google Scholar
Sauer, H., Wild, A., and Rühle, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis II. The causes of inhibition of photosynthesis. Z. Naturforsch. 42C: 270–278.Google Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33: 654–657.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 192–197.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3: 155–181.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 315–321.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Butler, T. M., Hornsby, A. G., Augustijn-Beckers, R.W.M., and Burt, J. P. 1992. The SCS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision-making. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S.Wats. and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 1215–1234.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974-1995. Weed Technol. 11: 308–317.Google Scholar
Wild, A. and Manderscheid, R. 1984. The effect of phosphinothricin on the assimilation of ammonia in plants. Z. Naturforsch. 39C: 500–504.Google Scholar