agronomy Agronomy Agronomy Agronomy 2073-4395 MDPI 10.3390/agronomy2040295 agronomy-02-00295 Article Integrated Palmer Amaranth Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton: I. Soil-Inversion, High-Residue Cover Crops and Herbicide Regimes Aulakh Jatinder S. 1 Price Andrew J. 2 * Enloe Stephen F. 1 van Santen Edzard 1 Wehtje Glenn 1 Patterson Michael G. 1 Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA; Email: jsa0005@auburn.edu (J.S.A.); sfe0001@auburn.edu (S.F.E.); vanedza@auburn.edu (E.S.); wehtjgr@auburn.edu (G.W.); pattemg@auburn.edu (M.G.P.) National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36852, USA Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; Email: andrew.price@ars.usda.gov; Tel.: +1-334-887-8596 (ext. 2742); Fax: +1-334-887-8597. 05 11 2012 12 2012 2 4 295 311 29 08 2012 23 10 2012 24 10 2012 © 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 2012

This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

A three year field experiment was conducted to evaluate the role of soil-inversion, cover crops and herbicide regimes for Palmer amaranth between-row (BR) and within-row (WR) management in glufosinate-resistant cotton. The main plots were two soil-inversion treatments: fall inversion tillage (IT) and non-inversion tillage (NIT). The subplots were three cover crop treatments: crimson clover, cereal rye and winter fallow; and sub subplots were four herbicide regimes: preemergence (PRE) alone, postemergence (POST) alone, PRE + POST and a no herbicide check (None). The PRE herbicide regime consisted of a single application of pendimethalin at 0.84 kg ae ha−1 plus fomesafen at 0.28 kg ai ha−1. The POST herbicide regime consisted of a single application of glufosinate at 0.60 kg ai ha−1 plus S-metolachlor at 0.54 kg ai ha−1 and the PRE + POST regime combined the prior two components. At 2 weeks after planting (WAP) cotton, Palmer amaranth densities, both BR and WR, were reduced ≥90% following all cover crop treatments in the IT. In the NIT, crimson clover reduced Palmer amaranth densities >65% and 50% compared to winter fallow and cereal rye covers, respectively. At 6 WAP, the PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes in both IT and NIT reduced BR and WR Palmer amaranth densities >96% over the three years. Additionally, the BR density was reduced ≥59% in no-herbicide (None) following either cereal rye or crimson clover when compared to no-herbicide in the winter fallow. In IT, PRE, POST and PRE + POST herbicide regimes controlled Palmer amaranth >95% 6 WAP. In NIT, Palmer amaranth was controlled ≥79% in PRE and ≥95% in PRE + POST herbicide regimes over three years. POST herbicide regime following NIT was not very consistent. Averaged across three years, Palmer amaranth controlled ≥94% in PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes regardless of cover crop. Herbicide regime effect on cotton yield was highly significant; the maximum cotton yield was produced by the PRE + POST herbicide regime. Averaged over three years, the PRE, POST and PRE + POST cotton yields were about three times higher than no herbicide regime. In a conservation tillage production system, a PRE + glufosinate POST herbicide based regime coupled with a cereal rye cover crop may effectively control Palmer amaranth and maximize cotton yields.

cover crops glufosinate-tolerant cotton herbicide regimes soil-inversion 1. Introduction

Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats) is a highly aggressive dioecious row crop weed in the Southeastern US [1]. It has several unique weedy characteristics including rapid growth of >5 inches a day during peak growth and can attain a final height of ≥2 m [2]. It is a prolific seed producer; a single female plant can produce more than 600,000 seeds, which have an average diameter of 1.0 mm [3]. In addition, Palmer amaranth has exceptional drought–tolerance and can endure moisture stress very well [4,5,6,7].

Palmer amaranth is highly problematic and interferes with the production of crops such as cotton, corn (Zea mays L.), cucurbits, grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench), peanut (Arachis hypogea L.), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), soybean (Glycine max L.), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) and several vegetable crops [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].

The occurrence of glyphosate resistance in Palmer amaranth has challenged cotton-weed managers in the Southeaster US. Until 2005, glyphosate had been very efficacious on Palmer amaranth [22,23,24]. However, the extensive adoption of glyphosate-resistant technology virtually replaced the conventional weed control technology consisting of preplant incorporated (PPI), preemergence (PRE), postemergence (POST) and post-directed (PDS) applied herbicides [25]. The sole reliance on glyphosate has resulted in selection for resistant biotypes of Palmer amaranth. Glyphosate resistant in Palmer amaranth was first documented in Macon County Georgia, in 2006 [26,27]. As of 2010, glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth populations have been confirmed in 10 states [28]. Additionally, the Palmer amaranth populations resistant to dinitroaniline herbicides have been also reported [28,29].

Historically, cotton was grown in conventional tillage utilizing primary and secondary tillage including moldboard plowing, disking and cultivation. However, increasing input costs, low commodity prices, and concerns for declining soil organic quality, and in some regions subsoil compaction, necessitated the adoption of alternative tillage options such as strip-tillage production systems that utilize a within row subsoiler to disrupt soil compaction under the crop row and minimizes surface residue disturbance [30,31]. Consequently, inadequate weed control has been reported in some conservation-tillage cotton production [32]. The infestation of small-seeded annual weeds such as Palmer amaranth has often been attributed to conservation tillage systems that preclude burial of weed seed. Moldboard plowing with soil inversion to the depth of 30 cm (12 in) has been shown to reduce glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth emergence 46% to 60% because many of the weed seeds are placed at depths which prevent emergence [33,34]. However, the return to conventional tillage to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth threatens to reduce conservation tillage practices. Some researchers [35,36] advocate the integration of traditional and alternative weed control strategies, such as the utilization of crop and herbicide rotation and integration of high residue cereal cover crops in order to sustain conservation tillage practices.

Over the last decade, the inclusion of cover crops in conservation-tillage systems has been researched due to the ability of some cover crops to suppress early-season weed density and growth either through direct competition from cover crop biomass [37,38,39,40,41] or through allelopathy [42,43,44,45,46,47]. Cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) has been well documented for both high biomass potential and allelopathic properties by several researchers [42,43,48,49,50,51,52]. Several studies on cover crops have reported excellent early-season weed control that can preclude the use of preemergence herbicides in crops [39,41,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. However, the success of a cover crop in early-season weed suppression is determined by the biomass production potential which varies with year, location and management practices [37,48,53,56,60]. It has been observed that cereal rye residue alone was effective in reducing the glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth emergence by 94% in the row middle and 50% within the row [34]. The use of high residue cover crops in conjunction with chemical and cultural weed control tactics could provide effective Palmer amaranth control in established glyphosate-resistant populations as well as help prevent the development of resistance in the remaining glyphosate-susceptible populations [61]. Thus, the inclusion of cover crops in conservation tillage system may provide weed control benefits similar to those realized from inversion tillage in conventional tillage system.

With the widespread appearance of glyphosate–resistant Palmer amaranth, cotton producers are considering other weed management options such as inversion tillage, surface tillage, and increased integration of soil active herbicides, cover crops and adoption of alternative GMO herbicide-crop systems such as glufosinate resistant cotton technology. Although inversion tillage can improve control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, increased input costs and potential soil erosion are significant challenges. However the integration of cover crops and glufosinate-resistant cotton technology are possible viable alternatives. Therefore, a field study was conducted to evaluate the role of soil inversion, cover crops and herbicide regimes for Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton.

 2. Materials and Methods

A three year field experiment was conducted from fall 2008 through 2011 at the E.V. Smith Research Center, Field Crops Unit near Shorter, AL on a Compass sandy loam soil (coarse-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Plinthic Paleudults) with 1.9% to 2.1% organic matter and pH 6.2 to 6.4. The experiment occupied a site that had been in continuous strip-tillage for the previous six years prior to experiment establishment, infested with a mixed population of resistant and susceptible Palmer amaranth, and subsequent treatments remained in the same location for three years without re-randomization of treatments. The experimental design consisted of a split-split plot treatment restriction in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The main plots (43.9 by 9.1 m) were two soil-inversion treatments: fall inversion tillage (IT) and non-inversion tillage (NIT). After establishment, all IT plots reverted to NIT in future years. The subplots (14.6 by 9.1 m) were three different cover crops: crimson clover, cereal rye and winter fallow. The sub subplots (3.6 by 9.1 m) were four different herbicide regimes: preemergence (PRE) alone, postemergence (POST) alone, PRE + POST, and a no-herbicide check (None). A schedule of operations performed each year is given in Table 1.

agronomy-02-00295-t001_Table 1

Schedule of operations performed during the experiment.

Operations Experiment years
2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011
Broadcasting Palmer amaranth seed 19 Nov – –
Fall inversion tillage 19 Nov – –
Planting of cover crops 20 Nov 6 Jan 2 Dec
Rolling and termination of cover crops 22 Apr 18 May 19 Apr
Subsoiling 23 Apr 24 May 26 Apr
Cotton planting 1 Jun 27 May 5 May
Fertilization (16-16-16) 1 Jun 27 May 5 May
PRE application 3 Jun 27 May 6 May
POST application 16 Jun 16 Jun 24 May
Graminicide application (Poast Plus® + COC) 13 July 8 July 6 July
LAYBY application 14 Aug 16 Aug 19 July
Cotton defoliation 26 Oct 14 Oct 13 Sep
Cotton harvesting 9 Nov 20 Oct 30 Sep
2.1. Soil-Inversion, Cover Crops, and Cover Crop Management

In the fall 2008, approximately 28 million native glyphosate susceptible Palmer amaranth seeds were broadcast per hectare to ensure a sizeable seedbank. Half of each replicate was subjected to fall inversion tillage (IT) by moldboard plowing (30 cm) immediately fb one pass each of a disk and field cultivator, and half was under non-inversion tillage (NIT) using a within-row subsoiler equipped with pneumatic tires only to close the subsoiling slot. Subsequently each year in the fall, cereal rye (var. “Elbon” in 2009 and 2010 and “Wrens Abruzzi” in 2011) and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) var. ‘Dixie‘ cover crops were planted using 101 and 28 kg ha−1 seed, respectively in both the IT and NIT. Different cereal rye varieties were planted due to seed availability; Wrens Abruzzi has been shown to be more allelopathic [62]. In 2009 and 2010, frequent rain delayed both the harvesting of cotton and subsequent planting of cover crops [36]. Cereal rye cover was fertilized using 34 kg·ha−1 of a 33-0-0 fertilizer. A winter fallow control was also included as check.

Cover crops were rolled with a three section straight bar roller/crimper (Bigham Brothers, Inc., Lubbock, TX, USA) in late April or early May using a JD 7730 equipped with an AutoSteer GPS. Cover crop rolling was immediately followed by an application of glyphosate (Roundup Weathermax®, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA) at 0.84 kg ae ha−1 plus glufosinate (Ignite®, Bayer Crop Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) at 0.49 kg ae ha−1. The mixture was needed to enhance crimson clover termination. Cover crop biomass samples were taken prior to desiccation and oven dry biomass was recorded. The entire experimental area was sub-soiled in May using the previously described equipment to remove hardpan induced interactions; thus, no hardpans existed throughout the experimental area which could likely bias the yield results. Subsoiling was followed by planting of glufosinate-resistant cotton (FM 1845 LLB2 in 2009, and FM 1735 LL, in 2010 and 2011, Bayer Crops Science, Research Triangle Park, NC). Each year, cotton was fertilized using 211 kg·ha−1 of 16-16-16 fertilizer at the time of planting.

2.2. Herbicide Regimes

Four herbicide regimes constituted the sub-sub plot treatments. The PRE herbicide regime consisted of a single application of pendimethalin (Prowl®, BASF Ag. Products, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) at 0.84 kg ae ha−1plus fomesafen (Reflex®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC, USA) at 0.28 kg ai ha−1. The POST herbicide regime consisted of a single application of glufosinate at 0.60 kg ai ha−1 plus S-metolachlor (Dual II Magnum®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC, USA) at 0.54 kg ai ha−1 and the PRE + POST regime consisted of both the aforementioned PRE and POST regimes. PRE herbicides were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 145 L ha−1 with 8002 flat-fan nozzles. POST herbicides were applied to 3 to 4 lf Palmer amaranth between 15 and 20 days after planting cotton with an ATV-mounted sprayer delivering 145 L ha−1 with 8002 flat-fan spray nozzles. A last application (LAYBY) directed spray consisting of a prometryn (Caporal®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC, USA) at 0.84 kg ai ha−1 + MSMA (Drexel Chemical Company, Memphis, TN) at 1.4 kg ai ha−1 was applied. Sethoxydim (Poast Plus®, Bayer AG. Products, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) was applied at 0.28 kg ai ha−1 as needed to maintain grass control.

2.3. Palmer Amaranth Sampling and Control Ratings

Palmer amaranth density was recorded once before the application of POST and again before the LAYBY application. Between-row (BR) Palmer amaranth densities were recorded as number of plants in a quadrat (0.25 m−2) randomly placed at 4 different positions between the 2nd and 3rd row of a four-row cotton plot. Similarly, the within-row (WR) Palmer densities were recorded from a quadrant (0.25 m−2) randomly placed at 4 different positions within the 2nd and 3rd rows. Palmer amaranth control was assessed visually at weekly intervals, starting a week after application of PRE until LAYBY application. A 0–100 scale was used where 0 and 100 indicate no control and complete control, respectively. Each year, the Palmer amaranth was hand removed from all the plots before application of LAYBY to facilitate harvest. Therefore, Palmer amaranth was 100% controlled in each plot after LAYBY until cotton harvest. Cotton yields were recorded by mechanically harvesting two center 9 m rows within each four-row plot with a spindle picker.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Three years data were subjected to combined ANOVA using Proc GLIMMIX in SAS (version 9.2, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Year, soil-inversion, cover crop, herbicide regime and their interactions were treated as fixed effects, while replications, replication × soil-inversion, replication × soil-inversion × cover crop were treated as random effects. When year and its interaction with other factors were significant, data were analyzed and presented by year. Palmer amaranth visual control data were arcsine-transformed and Palmer amaranth density data were square root transformed. However, the original and transformed data analyses gave similar results, thus non-transformed data are presented. Multiple mean comparisons were made using the “adj = simulate” option in the statistical analysis system at the 5% significance level.

3. Results 3.1. Cover Crop Biomass

Analysis of the three year data revealed significant effect of type of cover crop only. Averaged over three years, the maximum cover crop biomass was produced by cereal rye (4047 kg·ha−1) fb crimson clover (3570 kg·ha−1) that was significantly more than and winter fallow (1253 kg·ha−1).

 3.2. Palmer Amaranth Density

Palmer amaranth densities at 2 WAP revealed significant year by treatment interactions. Therefore data are presented by year. A soil-inversion by cover crop interaction was observed for both BR and WR densities at 2 WAP in 2008–2009 and 2010–2011 while only the IT main effect was significant in 2009–2010. The highest BR and WR densities of 49 and 35 plants m−2, respectively, occurred in winter fallow following NIT in 2009–2010 (Table 2).

agronomy-02-00295-t002_Table 2

Influence of soil-inversion and cover crop on Palmer amaranth density at 2 WAP over three production years.

Experimental variable Palmer amaranth density (plants m−2)
Soil-inversion Cover crop 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011
BR * WR BR WR BR WR
Non-inversion (NIT) Winter fallow 10 a ** 11 a 49 a 35 a 22a 17 a
Crimson clover 3 b 2 c 29 ab 26 a 1 c 6 c
Cereal rye 9.0 a 7 b 18 b 31 a 10 b 12 b
Mean 7.3 A 6.7 A 32.0 A 30.7 A 11.0 A 11.7 A
Fall-inversion (IT) Winter fallow 1 c 0 c 2 c 2 c 2 c 1 d
Crimson clover 0 c 0 c 2 c 0 c 0 c 0 d
Cereal rye 1 c 1 c 3 c 2 c 0 c 1 d
Mean 0.7 B 0.3 B 3.7 B 1.3 B 0.7 B 0.7 B

* Abbreviations: WAP, weeks after cotton planting; BR, between row; WR, within row; ** Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant (P = 0.05).

In 2008–2009 and 2010–2011, crimson clover reduced Palmer amaranth density by as much as 96% BR and 82% WR in NIT. Similar reductions in Palmer amaranth and other weed densities by cover crop residues have been reported [63,64,65,66]. Both BR and WR densities were reduced >90% following all cover crops in the IT. Each year with IT both BR and WR densities of Palmer amaranth, were ≥90% lower than with NIT (Table 2). Furthermore each year at 2 WAP, Palmer amaranth was 100% controlled by the PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes that received a PRE application within two days of planting (data not shown).

At 6 WAP, the effect of year and its interactions with other factors were not significant. However, both the BR and WR densities demonstrated strong interaction of soil-inversion by herbicide regime. Additionally, a cover crop by herbicide regime interaction (P < 0.0001) was detected, for BR densities only. The BR and WR densities were markedly reduced (≤1 plant m−2) under PRE, POST and PRE + POST herbicide regimes following IT and PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes following NIT (Table 3).

agronomy-02-00295-t003_Table 3

Influence of soil–inversion and herbicide regime on Palmer amaranth density at 6 WAP * and cotton yield with cover crop and three production years’ data combined.

Experimental variable Palmer amaranth density (plants m−2) Cotton yield (kg·ha−1)
Soil–inversion Herbicide regime BR * WR
Non-inversion (NIT) None 26 a ** 23 a 105 c
PRE * 1 b 1 b 1520 a
POST 4 b 3 b 1423 a
PRE + POST 1.0 b 1 b 1716 a
Mean 8.0 A 7.0 A 1191 B
Fall-inversion (IT) None 6 b 4 b 976 b
PRE 1 b 0 b 1544 a
POST 1 b 1 b 1893 a
PRE + POST 0 b 0 b 2041 a
Mean 2.0 B 1.3 B 1613 A

* Abbreviations: WAP, weeks after cotton planting; BR, between row; WR, within row; PRE, only preemergence; POST, only postemergence; PRE + POST, both preemergence and postemergence; ** Means within a column followed by same letter are not significant (P = 0.05).

The Palmer amaranth density, both BR and WR, was reduced ≥77% in no-herbicide regime (None) following IT when compared to no–herbicide regime following NIT. The PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes in both IT and NIT reduced BR and WR densities ≥96%. With the cover crop by herbicide regime interaction, the BR density was reduced ≥55% in no-herbicide (None) following either cereal rye or crimson clover when compared to no-herbicide in the winter fallow (Table 4).

agronomy-02-00295-t004_Table 4

Influence of cover crop and herbicide regime on BR * Palmer amaranth density at 6 WAP and cotton yield with soil-inversion and three production years’ data combined.

Experimental variable Palmer amaranth density (plants m−2) Cotton yield (kg·ha−1)
Cover crop Herbicide regime
Winter fallow None 27 a** 141 b
PRE* 1 c 1506 a
POST 4 c 1449 a
PRE + POST 1c 1869 a
Mean 11.0 A 1242 A
Crimson clover None 10 b 711 b
PRE 1 c 1544 a
POST 1 c 1918 a
PRE + POST 1 c 2047 a
Mean 4.0 B 1555 A
Cereal rye None 11 b 768 b
PRE 1 c 1546 a
POST 3 c 1606 a
PRE + POST 0 c 1720 a
Mean 5. 0 B 1410 A

* Abbreviations: BR, between row; WAP, weeks after cotton planting; PRE, only preemergence; POST, only postemergence; PRE + POST, both preemergence and postemergence; ** Means within a column followed by same letter are not significant (P = 0.05).

PRE, POST and PRE + POST herbicide regimes’ Palmer amaranth densities were similar but lower than the no herbicide (None) regime following any cover crop. However, the PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes were very consistent in reducing Palmer amaranth density (>95%) following all the cover crops. Earlier research also indicated the need of either a PRE or PRE + POST herbicide regime to supplement partial weed control obtained following different cover crops in a conservation tillage system [63]. Previous researchers also reported similar cover crop by herbicide interaction effect [67]. Excellent control of Palmer amaranth with a combination of pendimethalin and fomesafen has been reported [68].

 3.3. Palmer Amaranth Visual Control

Palmer amaranth visual percent control at 6 WAP reflected significant year by treatment interactions. Analysis by year also indicated significant two way interactions between soil-inversion and herbicide regime and cover crop by herbicide regime each year. Additionally, a soil-inversion by cover crop interaction was highly significant in 2010–2011 (P = 0.0007). All main effects were also highly significant each year (P < 0.0001). In 2008–2009, Palmer amaranth was controlled 38%, 79% and 95% in POST, PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes, respectively, following NIT while all herbicide regimes following IT provided ≥91% control (Table 5).

agronomy-02-00295-t005_Table 5

Influence of soil-inversion by herbicide regime on Palmer amaranth control at 6 WAP * with cover crop data combined in three production years.

Experimental variable Year (% control)
Soil-inversion Herbicide regime 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011
Non-inversion (NIT) None 27 c ** 15 c 9 c
PRE * 79 b 93 a 100 a
POST 38 c 84 b 100 a
PRE + POST 95 a 98 a 100 a
Mean 60.0 B 72.0 B 77.0 B
Fall-inversion (IT) None 91 a 77 b 81 b
PRE 99 a 98 a 100 a
POST 95 a 97 a 100 a
PRE + POST 100 a 100 a 100 a
Mean 96.0 A 93.0 A 95.0 A

* Abbreviations: WAP, weeks after cotton planting; PRE, only preemergence; POST, only postemergence; PRE + POST, both preemergence and postemergence; ** Means within a column followed by same letter are not significant (P = 0.05).

In 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, both PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes controlled Palmer amaranth ≥93% regardless of the soil–inversion treatment. In 2009–2010, the POST herbicide regime controlled Palmer amaranth 84 and 97% in NIT and IT, respectively. However in 2010–2011, POST herbicide regime controlled Palmer amaranth 100% in both soil–inversion treatments. The reason for poor performance of the POST herbicide regime in NIT in 2008–2009 is likely attributed to the oversized (>10 cm) Palmer amaranth plants at the time of application.

Cover crop by herbicide regime interaction over years revealed ≥94% control of Palmer amaranth in PRE and PRE + POST herbicide regimes regardless of type of cover crop (Table 6).

The POST herbicide regime following both winter fallow and cereal rye provided 83% control of Palmer amaranth and was similar to the POST following crimson clover. However, Palmer amaranth control varied from 36% to 63% in no-herbicide (None) regime following different cover crops. Analysis revealed a soil–inversion by cover crop interaction in 2010–2011; Palmer amaranth control following different cover crops varied from 75% to 82% in NIT and 89% to 100% in IT, respectively (Figure 1).

Both cereal rye and crimson clover in IT gave significantly higher Palmer amaranth control (≥97%) than winter fallow in both IT and NIT and crimson clover and cereal rye in NIT. Previous research indicates the need to utilize residual herbicides throughout the season to aid in management of glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth [69,70,71,72].

agronomy-02-00295-t006_Table 6

Cover crop by herbicide regime interaction effect on Palmer amaranth control at 6 WAP * with soil-inversion and three production years’ data combined.

Experimental variable Palmer amaranth control (%) Cotton yield (kg·ha−1)
Cover crop Herbicide regime
Winter fallow None 36 d ** 141 b
PRE * 95 ab 1506 a
POST 83 b 1449 a
PRE + POST 98 ab 1869 a
Mean 78 B 1242 A
Crimson clover None 63 c 711 b
PRE 96 ab 1544 a
POST 91 ab 1918 a
PRE + POST 99 a 2047 a
Mean 87 A 1555 A
Cereal rye None 52 c 768 b
PRE 94 ab 1546 a
POST 83 b 1606 a
PRE + POST 99 a 1720 a
Mean 82 AB 1410 A

* Abbreviations: WAP, weeks after cotton planting; PRE, only preemergence; POST, only postemergence; PRE + POST, both preemergence and postemergence; ** Means within a column followed by same letter are not significant (P = 0.05).

Soil-inversion by cover crop interaction on Palmer amaranth control in 2011. Different letters indicate significant differences at P = 0.05.

 3.4. Cotton Yield

Analysis of the yield data revealed significant effect of herbicide regimes only. Although the cotton yield differences were not significant between PRE, POST and PRE + POST herbicide regimes, the maximum cotton yield was produced by the PRE + POST herbicide regime (1878 kg·ha−1) followed by POST (1658 kg·ha−1) and PRE (1532 kg·ha−1) alone regimes. PRE, POST and PRE + POST herbicide regimes’ cotton yields were ≥2.7 times higher than no-herbicide (None) regime (Table 7).

agronomy-02-00295-t007_Table 7

Influence of herbicide regimes on cotton yield with cover crop, soil-inversion, and three production years’ data combined.

Herbicide regime Herbicides Cotton yield (kg·ha−1)
None LAYBY consisting of prometryn + MSMA 560 b **
PRE * Pendimethalin + fomesafen fb LAYBY 1532 a
POST Glufosinate + S-metolachlor fb LAYBY 1658 a
PRE + POST Pendimethalin + fomesafen (PRE) fb Glufosinate + S-metolachlor (POST) fb LAYBY 1878 a

* Abbreviations: PRE, only preemergence, POST; only postemergence; PRE + POST, both preemergence and postemergence; fb, followed by; ** Means followed by same letter are not significant (P = 0.05).

 4. Discussion and Conclusions

Recent evolution of herbicide resistance in Palmer amaranth has revealed that an urgent restructuring of weed management tactics is needed. Consequently, integration of various weed management approaches such as IT, cover crops, crop rotations, competitive cultivars, herbicide rotation, soil residual chemistries and tank mixture of herbicides with different modes of action could diversify the weed control practices and thereby preclude the selection pressure for herbicide resistance. Furthermore, the longevity of herbicide resistant technology itself necessitates the inclusion of multiple tactics in weed management systems.

Fall–inversion tillage offers improved Palmer amaranth control by allowing the deep burial of seed. Considering the rapid loss of Palmer amaranth seed viability with time, IT would help reduce the amount of viable seed near the surface [73]. However, IT is well known to deplete soil quality parameters such as soil organic matter while simultaneously increasing soil erosion. An occasional rotation with IT immediately followed by a cover crop conservation-tillage system could diversify weed management systems and prevent soil erosion. There is a great need of practical weed management solutions on farms severely impacted by glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth [74].

Our research evaluated soil–inversion, cover crops and alternative herbicide regimes as an integrated approach to managing Palmer amaranth. Results indicate that IT alone resulted in ≥77% control of Palmer amaranth 6 WAP due to Palmer amaranth seed burial; addition of winter cover crops further increased Palmer amaranth control. Cover crops alone in NIT provided ≤50% control of Palmer amaranth; thus indicating the need in both IT and NIT to integrate other effective weed management practices to protect cotton yields. In an IT-cereal rye cover crop situation, a PRE or POST alone herbicide regime was as effective as a PRE + POST regime due to lower Palmer amaranth densities. However, with NIT, an effective and timely PRE + POST herbicide regime was necessary to control the higher Palmer amaranth densities present in this situation. Overall, the PRE + POST herbicide regime resulted in the maximum Palmer amaranth control and higher cotton yields in both soil-inversion treatments (Table 8).

agronomy-02-00295-t008_Table 8

Palmer amaranth density and visual percent control at 6 WAP * and cotton yield from selected treatments with data combined over three production years.

Experimental variable Palmer amaranth density (plants m−2) Palmer amaranth Control (%) Cotton yield (kg·ha−1)
Soil-inversion Cover crop Herbicide regime BR * WR
Non-inversion (NIT) Crimson clover PRE + POST * 1 <1 98 1931
PRE 2 <1 92 1439
POST 2 1 82 1652
Cereal rye PRE + POST 1 <1 98 1620
PRE 2 <1 90 1433
POST 3 1 68 1425
Winter fallow PRE + POST 2 1 96 1699
PRE 1 1 90 1597
POST 5 4 72 1185
Fall-inversion (IT) Crimson clover PRE + POST 0 0 100 2163
PRE <1 <1 99 1650
POST <1 <1 99 2185
Cereal rye PRE + POST 0 0 100 1820
PRE <1 0 99 1667
POST 2 <1 97 1780
Winter fallow PRE + POST 0 0 100 2139
PRE <1 <1 99 1315
POST 1 1 95 1713
The following treatments were the best in terms of both Palmer amaranth control and cotton yield.
Non-inversion (NIT) Crimson clover PRE + POST 1 0 98 1931
Cereal rye PRE + POST 1 <1 98 1620
Winter fallow PRE + POST 2 1 96 1699
Fall-inversion (IT) Crimson clover PRE + POST 0 0 100 2163
Cereal rye PRE + POST 0 0 100 1820
Winter fallow PRE + POST 0 0 100 2139

* Abbreviations: WAP, weeks after cotton planting; PRE, only preemergence; POST, only postemergence; PRE + POST, both preemergence and postemergence.

The highest Palmer amaranth densities, regardless of soil-inversion treatment and herbicide regime, were consistently recorded in the winter fallow situation. Therefore, in a conservation tillage production system, a PRE + glufosinate POST herbicide based regime coupled with a cover crop may effectively control Palmer amaranth and maximize cotton yields (Table 8).

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Trent Morton, USDA ARS NSDL, and the station personnel at the E. V. Smith and Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Centers for their technical assistance in this study. This work was partially supported by the Alabama Famer’s Federation Cotton Commission.

Conflict of Interest

Mention of a trade name, proprietary product, or specific equipment does not constitute a guarantee or warranty by the USDA or Auburn Univ. and does not imply endorsement of a product to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

References Fernald M.L. Gray’s Manual of Botany 8th American Book Co. New York, NY, USA 1950 602 Horak M.J. Loughin T.M. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species Weed Sci. 2000 48 347 355 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0347:GAOFAS]2.0.CO;2 Keeley P.E. Carter C.H. Thullen R.M. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Weed Sci. 1987 35 199 204 Ehleringer J. Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran Desert summer annual Oecologia 1983 57 107 112 10.1007/BF00379568 Jha P. Norsworthy J.K. Malik M.S. Bangarwa S.K. Oliveira M.J. Temporal emergence of Palmer amaranth from a natural seedbank Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 2006 59 177 Place G. Bowman D. Burton M. Rufty T. Root penetration through a high bulk density soil layer: Differential response of a crop and weed species Plant Soil 2008 307 179 190 10.1007/s11104-008-9594-4 Wright S.R. Jennette M.W. Coble H.D. Rufty T.W. Root morphology of young Glycine max, Senna obtusifolia, and Amaranthus palmeri Weed Sci. 1999 47 706 711 Bensch C.N. Horak M.J. Peterson D. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean Weed Sci. 2003 51 37 43 10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0037:IORPAR]2.0.CO;2 Burke I.C. Schroeder M. Thomas W.E. Wilcut J.W. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut Weed Technol. 2007 21 367 371 10.1614/WT-06-058.1 Klingaman T.E. Oliver L.R. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max) Weed Sci. 1994 42 523 527 Massinga R.A. Currie R.S. Horak M.J. Boyer J. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn Weed Sci. 2001 49 202 208 10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0202:IOPAIC]2.0.CO;2 Menges R.M. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and other plant residues in soil Weed Sci. 1987 35 339 347 Meyers S.L. Jennings K.M. Schultheis J.R. Monks D.W. Evaluation of Flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in Sweet potato Weed Technol. 2010 24 495 503 10.1614/WT-D-09-00057.1 Monks D.M. Oliver L.R. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds Weed Sci. 1988 36 770 774 Moore J.W. Murray D.S. Westerman R.B. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) effects on the harvest and yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum biclor) Weed Technol. 2004 18 23 29 10.1614/WT-02-086 Morgan G.D. Baumann P.A. Chandler J.M. Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield Weed Technol. 2001 15 408 412 10.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0408:CIOPAA]2.0.CO;2 Norsworthy J.K. Griffith G.M. Scott R.C. Smith K.L. Oliver L.R. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas Weed Technol. 2008 21 108 113 Norsworthy J.K. Smith K.L. Scott R.C. Gbur E.E. Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas cotton Weed Technol. 2007 21 825 831 10.1614/WT-06-204.1 Rowland M.W. Murry D.S. Verhalen L.M. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Weed Sci. 1999 47 305 309 Smith D.T. Baker R.V. Steele G.L. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Weed Technol. 2000 14 122 126 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0122:PAAPIO]2.0.CO;2 Webster T.M. Weed survey—Southern states Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 2005 58 291 306 Corbett J.L. Askew S.D. Thomas W.E. Wilcut J.W. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate Weed Technol. 2004 18 443 453 10.1614/WT-03-139R Culpepper A.S. York A.C. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton J. Cotton Sci. 1998 2 174 185 Parker R.G. York A.C. Jordan D.L. Comparison of glyphosate products in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and corn (Zea mays) Weed Technol. 2005 19 796 802 10.1614/WT-040271R2.1 Young B.G. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops Weed Technol. 2006 20 301 307 10.1614/WT-04-189.1 Culpepper A.S. Grey T.L. Vencill W.K. Kichler J.M. Webster T.M. Brown S.M. York A.C. Davis J.W. Hanna W.W. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia Weed Sci. 2006 54 620 626 10.1614/WS-06-001R.1 Culpepper A.S. Whitaker J.R. MacRae A.W. York A.C. Distribution of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Georgia and North Carolina during 2005 and 2006 J. Cotton Sci. 2008 12 306 310 Heap I. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds (accessed on 11 March 2012) Available online:www.weedscience.org Gosset B.J. Murdock E.C. Toler J.E. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides Weed Technol. 1992 6 587 591 Troeh F.R. Hobbs J.A. Donahue R.L. Soil and Water Conservation Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA 1991 232 Wauchope R.D. McDowell L.L. Hagen L.J. Environmental effects of limited tillage Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems, Proceedings of Weed Science Society of America Champaign, IL, USA 14–16 January 1985 266 281 McWhorter C.G. Jordan T.N. Limited tillage in cotton production Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems Wiese A.F. Weed Science Society of America Champaign, IL, USA 1985 61 75 Culpepper A.S. York A.C. Marshall M.W. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the Southeast Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 2009 62 371 Culpepper A.S. Kichler J. Sosnoskie L. York A. Sammons D. Nichols R. Integrating cover crop residue and moldboard plowing into glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth management programs Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference New Orleans, LA, USA 4–7 January 2010 Price A.J. Balkcom K.B. Culpepper A.S. Kelton J.A. Nichols R.L. Schomberg H.H. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: A threat to conservation tillage J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011 66 265 275 10.2489/jswc.66.4.265 Price A.J. Balkcom K.S. Duzy L.M. Kelton J.A. Herbicide and cover cop residue integration for Amaranth control in conservation agriculture cotton Weed Technol. 2012 26 490 498 10.1614/WT-D-11-00127.1 Brennan E.B. Smith R.F. Winter cover crop growth and weed suppression on the central coast of California Weed Technol. 2005 19 1017 1024 10.1614/WT-04-246R1.1 Collins H.P. Delgado J.A. Alva A.K. Follett R.F. Use of nitrogen-15 isotopic techniques to estimate nitrogen cycling from a mustard cover crop to potatoes Agron. J. 2007 99 27 35 10.2134/agronj2005.0357 Reddy K.N. Effects of cereal and legume cover crop residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max) Weed Technol. 2001 15 660 668 10.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0660:EOCALC]2.0.CO;2 Teasdale J.R. Mohler C.L. The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches Weed Sci. 2000 48 385 392 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0385:TQRBWE]2.0.CO;2 Yenish J.P. Worsham A.D. York A.C. Cover crops for herbicide replacement in no-tillage corn (Zea mays) Weed Technol. 1996 10 815 821 Barnes J.P. Putnam A.R. Evidence for allelopathy by residues and aqueous extracts of rye (Secale cereale) Weed Sci. 1986 34 384 390 Barnes J.P. Putnam A.R. Burke B.A. Aasen A.J. Isolation and characterization of allelochemicals in rye herbage Phytochemistry 1987 26 1385 1390 10.1016/S0031-9422(00)81818-X Burgos N.R. Talbert R.E. Differential activity of allelochemicals from Secale cereale in seedling bioassays Weed Sci. 2000 48 302 310 10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0302:DAOAFS]2.0.CO;2 Dhima K.V. Vasilakoglou I.B. Eleftherohorinos I.G. Lithourgidis A.S. Allelopathic potential of winter cereals and their cover crop mulch effect on grass weed suppression and corn development Crop Sci. 2006 46 345 352 10.2135/cropsci2005-0186 Vasilakoglou I. Dhima K. Eleftherohorinos I. Lithourgidis A. Winter cereal cover crop mulches and inter-row cultivation effects on cotton development and grass weed suppression Agron. J. 2006 98 1290 1297 10.2134/agronj2006.0002 White R.H. Worsham A.D. Blum U. 1989. Allelopathic potential of legume debris Weed Sci. 1989 37 674 679 Mohler C.L. Teasdale J.R. Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue Weed Res. 1993 33 487 499 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1993.tb01965.x Nagabhushana G.G. Worsham A.D. Yenish J.P. Allelopathic cover crops to reduce herbicide use in sustainable agricultural systems Allelopathy J. 2001 8 133 146 Price A.J. Balkcom K.S. Arriaga F.J. Rye biomass amount affects weed suppression levels in conversation-tillage cotton Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference New Orleans, LA, USA 4–7 January 2005 2921 2923 Price A.J. Arriaga F.J. Raper R.L. Balkcom K.S. Kornecki T.S. Reeves D.W. Comparison of mechanical and chemical winter cereal cover crop termination systems and cotton yield in conservation agriculture Cotton Sci. 2009 13 238 245 Reeves D.W. Price A.J. Patterson M.G. Evaluation of three winter cereals for weed control in conservation-tillage non-transgenic cotton Weed Technol. 2005 19 731 736 10.1614/WT-04-245R1.1 Ateh C.M. Doll J.D. Spring-planted winter rye as a living mulch to control weeds in soybean Weed Technol. 1996 10 347 353 Fisk J.W. Hesterman O.B. Shrestha A. Kells J.J. Harwood R.R. Squire J.M. Sheaffer C.C. Weed suppression by annual legume cover crops in no tillage corn Agron. J. 2001 93 319 325 10.2134/agronj2001.932319x Isik D. Kaya E. Ngouajio M. Mennan H. Weed suppression in organic pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with winter cover crops Crop Prot. 2009 28 356 363 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.12.002 Teasdale J.R. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems J. Prod. Agric. 1996 9 475 479 Teasdale J.R. Beste C.E. Potts W.E. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue Weed Sci. 1991 39 195 199 Teasdale J.R. Pillai P. Collins R.T. Synergism between cover crop residue and herbicide activity on emergence and early growth of weeds Weed Sci. 2005 53 521 527 10.1614/WS-04-212R Zasada I.A. Linker H.M. Coble H.D. Initial weed densities affect no-tillage weed management with a rye (Secale cereale) cover crop Weed Technol. 1997 11 473 477 Schomberg H.H. Endale D.M. Calegari A. Peixoto R. Miyazawa M. Cabrera M.L. Influence of cover crops on potential nitrogen availability to succeeding crops in a Southern Piedmont soil Biol. Fertil. Soil 2006 42 299 307 10.1007/s00374-005-0027-8 Price A.J. Stoll M.E. Bergtold J.S. Arriaga F.J. Balkcom K.S. Kornecki T.S. Raper R.L. Effect of cover crop extracts on cotton and radish radicle elongation Comm. Biometry Crop Sci. 2008 3 60 66 Reberg-Horton S. Burton J. Danehower D. Ma G. Monks D. Murphy J. Ranells N. Williamson J. Creamer N. Changes over time in the allelochemical content of ten cultivars of rye (Secale cereale L.) J. Chem. Ecol. 2005 31 179 193 10.1007/s10886-005-0983-3 Price A.J. Reeves D.W. Patterson M.G. Evaluation of weed control provided by three winter cereals in conservation-tillage soybean Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2006 21 159 164 10.1079/RAF2005135 Price A.J. Reeves D.W. Patterson M.G. Gamble B.E. Balkcom K.S. Arriaga F.J. Monks C.D. Weed control in peanut grown in a high-residue conservation-tillage system Peanut Sci. 2007 34 59 64 10.3146/0095-3679(2007)34[59:WCIPGI]2.0.CO;2 Reddy K.N. Impact of rye cover crop and herbicides on weeds, yield, and net return in narrow-row transgenic and conventional soybean (Glycine max) Weed Technol. 2003 17 28 35 10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0028:IORCCA]2.0.CO;2 Saini M. Price A.J. van Santen E. Cover crop residue effects on early-season weed establishment in a conservation-tillage corn-cotton rotation Proceedings of the 28th Southern Conservation Systems Conference Amarillo, TX, USA 26–28 June 2006 Weston L. Cover crop and herbicide influence on row crop seedling establishment in no-tillage culture Weed Sci. 1990 38 166 171 Timothy L.G. Sosnoskie L. Webster T.M. Palmer amaranth control as affected by herbicide, method of application, and winter cover crop (accessed on 22 July 2012) Available online:http://commodities.caes.uga.edu/fieldcrops/cotton/rerpubs/2009/p049RER2009.pdf Steckel L. Cotton Weed Control Weed Control Manual for Tennessee Technical Report PB 1580-6M-12/08 for University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension Service Knoxville, TN, USA 2008 9 83 Stephenson D. Stewart S. Vidrine R. Herbicide Resistance Management in Roundup Ready Cotton Technical Report for Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Baton Rouge, LA, USA 2008 Whitaker J.R. York A.C. Jordan D.L. Culpepper A.S. Sosnoskie L.M. Residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control Cotton Sci. 2011 15 89 99 York A.C. Culpepper A.S. Weed Management in Cotton 2009 Cotton Information North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Raleigh, NC, USA 2009 68 125 Sosnoski L.M. Webster T.M. Culpepper A.S. Reductions in Palmer amaranth seed viability over time (accessed on 11 March 2012) Available online:http://commodities.caes.uga.edu/fieldcrops/cotton/rerpubs/2009/p055RER2009.pdf Shaw D.R. Culpepper A.S. Owen M. Price A.J. Wilson R. Herbicide-resistant weeds threaten soil conservation gains: Finding a balance for soil and farm sustainability, 2012 (accessed on 11 March 2012) Available online:http://www.cast-science.org