PAM: Decision Support for Long-Term Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 915-927 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Lindsay ◽  
Michael Popp ◽  
Jason Norsworthy ◽  
Muthukumar Bagavathiannan ◽  
Stephen Powles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
Southern Us ◽  
Soil Seedbank

Palmer amaranth is the most troublesome weed problem in mid-southern US crop production. Herbicides continue to be the most commonly employed method for managing Palmer amaranth, despite the weed’s widespread resistance to them. Therefore, farmers need research and extension efforts that promote the adoption of integrated weed management (IWM) techniques. Producers, crop consultants, educators, and researchers would be more likely to deploy diversified chemical and nonchemical weed management options if they are more informed about long-term biological and economic implications via user-friendly decision-support software. Described within is a recently developed software that demonstrates the effects of Palmer amaranth management practices on soil seedbank, risk of resistance evolution, and economics over a 10-year planning horizon. Aiding this objective is a point-and-click interface that provides feedback on resistance risk, yield potential, profitability, soil seedbank dynamics, and error checking of management options.

scholarly journals A Review of the Soil Seedbank from a Weed Scientists Perspective

Agronomy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren M. Schwartz-Lazaro ◽  
Josh T. Copes
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Weed Seeds ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
Management Tactics

Despite efforts to eliminate weeds, they continue to thrive. Weed persistence is reliant upon the soil seedbank. Knowledge of the soil seedbank is continually expanding, but with the rising threat of herbicide-resistant weeds in agriculture, weed scientists have, in the past, focused their management tactics to more short-term solutions that tackle the aboveground problems, rather than long-term solutions. This article summarized the soil seedbank dynamics of weed seeds and derives management options, from a North American weed scientists’ perspective, that (i) favor the depletion of the seedbank, (ii) favor the germination of the seedbank, and (iii) reduce the possibilities of seed produced by the seedlings that germinated to return the soil. These options can potentially deter herbicide resistance and are successful in the short term for reducing field weed infestations, but are likely to take many years to affect recruitment to the weed seedbank, including recruitment of weed species with a high risk for resistance. The natural longevity of the seedbank suggests that alternative or additional weed management tactics are required to reduce the store of weed seeds in the active seedbank.

scholarly journals Effects of Narrow-Windrow Burning on Weed Dynamics in Soybean in Louisiana

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie M. Patterson ◽  
Lauren M. Schwartz-Lazaro ◽  
Gabrielle LaBiche ◽  
Daniel O. Stephenson
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Cultural Management ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
Weed Dynamics

The soil seedbank allows for long-term persistence of weed species in agricultural fields. Some weed species can persist in the soil seedbank for extended periods. Restricting inputs into the weed seedbank has a large impact on future population density and influences management practices of these weeds in soybean production systems. Harvest weed seed control (HWSC) tactics incorporate mechanical and cultural management strategies to target weed seeds present at harvest. A 3-year trial was initiated to determine if continual use of the HWSC method, narrow windrow burning, selects for earlier seed set and shattering in Louisiana soybean. No shifts in weed populations or shattering time were observed. However, there was a significant reduction in weed density and the weed seed present in the soil seedbank when HWSC and robust herbicide programs were used in combination. Therefore, utilizing multiple effective weed management strategies is imperative in reducing the soil seedbank.

An online decision support tool to evaluate ecological weed management strategies

Weed Science ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-473
Author(s):  
Douglas Bessette ◽  
Robyn Wilson ◽  
Christian Beaudrie ◽  
Clayton Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Soil Quality ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Organic Farmers ◽  
Ecological Weed Management ◽  
On Farm

AbstractWeeds remain the most commonly cited concern of organic farmers. Without the benefit of synthetic herbicides, organic farmers must rely on a host of ecological weed management (EWM) practices to control weeds. Despite EWM’s ability to improve soil quality, the perceived rate of integrated EWM strategy adoption remains low. This low adoption is likely a result of the complexity in designing and evaluating EWM strategies, the tendency for outreach to focus on the risks of EWM strategies rather than their benefits, and a lack of quantitative measures linking the performance of EWM strategies to farmers’ on-farm objectives and practices. Here we report on the development and deployment of an easy-to-use online decision support tool (DST) that aids organic farmers in identifying their on-farm objectives, characterizing the performance of their practices, and evaluating EWM strategies recommended by an expert advisory panel. Informed by the principles of structured decision making, the DST uses multiple choice tasks to help farmers evaluate the short- and long-term trade-offs of EWM strategies, while also focusing their attention on their most important objectives. We then invited organic farmers across the United States, in particular those whose email addresses were registered on the USDA’s Organic Research Integrity Database, to engage the DST online. Results show considerable movement in participants’ (n = 45) preferences from practices focused on reducing weeding costs and labor in the short term to EWM strategies focused on improving soil quality in the long term. Indeed, nearly half of those farmers (48%) who initially ranked a strategy composed of their current practices highest ultimately preferred a better-performing EWM strategy focused on eliminating the weed seedbank over 5 yr.

scholarly journals Benefits and Limitations of Decision Support Systems (DSS) with a Special Emphasis on Weeds

Agronomy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Kanatas ◽  
Ilias S. Travlos ◽  
Ioannis Gazoulis ◽  
Alexandros Tataridas ◽  
Anastasia Tsekoura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Farming Systems ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Management Options ◽  
The Right

Decision support systems (DSS) have the potential to support farmers to make the right decisions in weed management. DSSs can select the appropriate herbicides for a given field and suggest the minimum dose rates for an herbicide application that can result in optimum weed control. Given that the adoption of DSSs may lead to decreased herbicide inputs in crop production, their potential for creating eco-friendly and profitable weed management strategies is obvious and desirable for the re-designing of farming systems on a more sustainable basis. Nevertheless, it is difficult to stimulate farmers to use DSSs as it has been noticed that farmers have different expectations of decision-making tools depending on their farming styles and usual practices. The function of DSSs requires accurate assessments of weeds within a field as input data; however, capturing the data can be problematic. The development of future DSSs should target to enhance weed management tactics which are less reliant on herbicides. DSSs should also provide information regarding weed seedbank dynamics in the soil in order to suggest management options not only within a single period but also in a rotational view. More aspects ought to be taken into account and further research is needed in order to optimize the practical use of DSSs for supporting farmers regarding weed management issues in various crops and under various soil and climatic conditions.

Tolerance of Selected Advanced Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Breeding Lines to Fomesafen

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nilda R. Burgos ◽  
Lynn P. Brandenberger ◽  
Erin N. Stiers ◽  
Vinod K. Shivrain ◽  
Dennis R. Motes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acetolactate Synthase ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Preliminary Screening ◽  
Breeding Lines ◽  
Cowpea Cultivars ◽  
Tolerant Line ◽  
Potential Alternative ◽  
Als Inhibitor

Chemical options for weed control in commercial cowpea production are limited. Repeated long-term use of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor, imazethapyr, has resulted in selection for ALS-resistant populations of Palmer amaranth. Experiments were conducted at Bixby, OK, and Kibler, AR, from 2001 to 2003 to evaluate the tolerance of cowpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines to fomesafen, a potential alternative for controlling ALS-resistant Palmer amaranth and other problematic broadleaf weeds. Eight commercial cultivars and 42 advanced breeding lines were entered in the preliminary screening, using 0.84 kg/ha fomesafen. Six breeding lines were selected for the first replicated trial and three (00-582, 00-584, and 00-609) were advanced to across-location experiments. Fomesafen doses of 0, 0.17, 0.34, and 0.67 kg/ha were tested across locations. ‘Early Scarlet’ was used as commercial standard. The advanced lines had equal or higher yield potential (1,182 to 1,936 kg/ha) than Early Scarlet (1,108 kg/ha) across locations. Of the cultivars tested, line 00-609 was the best yielder, whereas 00-584 had the highest tolerance to fomesafen. At the commercial fomesafen rate of 0.34 kg/ha, 00-584 had higher yield (974 and 1,735 kg/ha, respectively, at Bixby, OK, and Kibler, AR) than the nontreated, weed-free, Early Scarlet. Thus, fomesafen can be used on the tolerant line, 00-584, without reducing yield potential relative to Early Scarlet.

scholarly journals Evaluation of POST-Harvest Herbicide Applications for Seed Prevention of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney D. Crow ◽  
Lawrence E. Steckel ◽  
Robert M. Hayes ◽  
Thomas C. Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Wheat Grain ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Post Harvest ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
Residual Herbicide

Recent increases in the prevalence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth mandate that new control strategies be developed to optimize weed control and crop performance. A field study was conducted in 2012 and 2013 in Jackson, TN, and in 2013 in Knoxville, TN, to evaluate POST weed management programs applied after harvest (POST-harvest) for prevention of seed production from GR Palmer amaranth and to evaluate herbicide carryover to winter wheat. Treatments were applied POST-harvest to corn stubble, with three applications followed by a PRE herbicide applied at wheat planting. Paraquat alone or mixed withS-metolachlor controlled 91% of existing Palmer amaranth 14 d after treatment but did not control regrowth. Paraquat tank-mixed with a residual herbicide of metribuzin, pyroxasulfone, saflufenacil, flumioxazin, pyroxasulfone plus flumioxazin, or pyroxasulfone plus fluthiacet improved control of regrowth or new emergence compared with paraquat alone. All residual herbicide treatments provided similar GR Palmer amaranth control. Through implementation of POST-harvest herbicide applications, the addition of 1,200 seed m−2or approximately 12 million seed ha−1to the soil seedbank was prevented. Overall, the addition of a residual herbicide provided only 4 to 7% more GR Palmer amaranth control than paraquat alone. Wheat injury was evident (< 10%) in 2012 from the PRE applications, but not in 2013. Wheat grain yield was not adversely affected by any herbicide application.

Modeling Glyphosate Resistance Management Strategies for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Cotton

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Neve ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy ◽  
Kenneth L. Smith ◽  
Ian A. Zelaya
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Glyphosate Resistance ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Resistance Risk ◽  
Resistance Evolution

A simulation model is used to explore management options to mitigate risks of glyphosate resistance evolution in Palmer amaranth in glyphosate-resistant cotton in the southern United States. Our first analysis compares risks of glyphosate resistance evolution for seven weed-management strategies in continuous glyphosate-resistant cotton monoculture. In the “worst-case scenario” with five applications of glyphosate each year and no other herbicides applied, evolution of glyphosate resistance was predicted in 74% of simulated populations. In other strategies, glyphosate was applied with various combinations of preplant, PRE, and POST residual herbicides. The most effective strategy included four glyphosate applications with a preplant fomesafen application, and POST tank mixtures of glyphosate plusS-metolachlor followed by glyphosate plus flumioxazin. This strategy reduced the resistance risk to 12% of populations. A second series of simulations compared strategies where glyphosate-resistant cotton was grown in one-to-one rotations with corn or cotton with other herbicide resistance traits. In general, crop rotation reduced risks of resistance by approximately 50% and delayed the evolution of resistance by 2 to 3 yr. These analyses demonstrate that risks of glyphosate resistance evolution in Palmer amaranth can be reduced by reducing glyphosate use within and among years, controlling populations with diverse herbicide modes of action, and ensuring that population size is kept low. However, no strategy completely eliminated the risk of glyphosate resistance.

Evaluation of Herbicide Programs for Use in a 2,4-D–Resistant Soybean Technology for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ryan Miller ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
High Level ◽  
Herbicide Programs

Two separate field experiments were conducted over a 2-yr period in Fayetteville, AR, during 2012 and 2013 to (1) evaluate POST herbicide programs utilizing a premixture of dimethylamine (DMA) salt of glyphosate + choline salt of 2,4-D in a soybean line resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate and (2) determine efficacy of herbicide programs that begin with PRE residual herbicides followed by POST applications of 2,4-D choline + glyphosate DMA on glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. In the first experiment, POST applications alone that incorporated the use of residual herbicides with the glyphosate + 2,4-D premixture provided 93 to 99% control of Palmer amaranth at the end of the season. In the second experiment, the use of flumioxazin, flumioxazin + chlorimuron methyl, S-metolachlor + fomesafen, or sulfentrazone + chloransulam applied PRE provided 94 to 98% early-season Palmer amaranth control. Early-season control helped maintain a high level of Palmer amaranth control throughout the growing season, in turn resulting in fewer reproductive Palmer amaranth plants present at soybean harvest compared to most other treatments. Although no differences in soybean yield were observed among treated plots, it was evident that herbicide programs should begin with PRE residual herbicides followed by POST applications of glyphosate + 2,4-D mixed with residual herbicides to minimize late-season escapes and reduce the likelihood of contributions to the soil seedbank. Dependent upon management decisions, the best stewardship of this technology will likely rely on the use multiple effective mechanisms of action incorporated into a fully integrated weed management system.

scholarly journals Effect of Crop Establishment Methods and Weed Management Practices on Weed Density and Productivity of Basmati Rice (Oryza sativa L.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 235-243
Author(s):  
Shipra Yadav ◽  
R. B. Yadav ◽  
R. K. Naresh ◽  
. Vivek ◽  
B. P. Dhyani
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Oryza Sativa L ◽  
Basmati Rice ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Yield Attributes ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Crop Establishment ◽  
Weed Dynamics ◽  
And Performance

Aim: Present experiment was conducted to study the effect of crop establishment methods and weed management options on weed dynamics and performance of Basmati rice. Study Design: Split plot design. Place and Duration of Study: Iinvestigation was conducted during the kharif-season of 2019 and 2020 at Crop Research Center, S.V.P.University of Agriculture &Technology, Meerut (U.P.), India. Methodology: Mainfactors consist of the crop establishment methodsviz.(1) Conventional Puddled Transplanting, (2) Unpuddled Flat and (3) Furrow Irrigated Raised Beds, the sub factors consist of five weed management options viz., (1) Pretilachlor @ 0.75 Kg ha-1 PE fb Bispyribac sodium @ 20 g a.i.  ha-1 POE at 20 DAT, (2) Almix 4 g a.i. ha-1 + Bispyribac sodium @ 20 g a.i. ha-1 POE at 20 DAT, (3) Bispyribac sodium @ 25 g a.i. ha-1 POE at 20 DAT, (4) Two hand weedings and (5) Weedy check. Results: Minimum total weed density was recorded under CPT (E1) followed by FIRB(E3) while itwas maximum under UPF(E2). Two hand-weedings effectively reduced total weed density. In herbicides, application of pretilachlor @ 0.75 Kg ha-1fb Bispyribac sodium @ 20 g a.i. ha-1 (W1) was found most effective in reducingtotal weed density.Higher yield and yield attributes were found under CPT which was significantly higher than the UPF and at par with FIRB. Amongweed management practices highest yield and yield attributes were obtained with pretilachlor @ 0.75 Kg ha-1fb Bispyribac sodium @ 20 g a.i. ha-1.Lowest yield and yield attributes were obtained in weedy check. Conclusion: Puddled transplantation in rice might be the best option to get higher yield and for weed control, application of Pretilachlor @ 0.75 Kg ha-1 PE fb Bispyribac sodium @ 20 g a.i.  ha-1 POE at 20 DAT may be done to get higher yield.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document