Abstract
Abstract Auxinic herbicides (Group 4) are a crucial tool for maintaining effective weed management in modern agronomic systems. Palmer amaranth has evolved resistance to multiple herbicides, including auxinic herbicides. With documentation of auxin resistance in Palmer amaranth, new strategies should be implemented to improve management. Field studies were conducted in Tennessee during the summers of 2024 and 2025 to evaluate the efficacy of different herbicide application methods for managing auxin-resistant Palmer amaranth. The research compared tank-mixed applications of 2,4-D and glufosinate with split-applied (split-boom; herbicides applied simultaneously through separate spray booms as independent solutions) applications across multiple Palmer amaranth populations. Results demonstrated that in populations exhibiting high auxinic resistance, the split-boom application method was more effective than the conventional tank-mix approach. However, control levels were still below those typically considered acceptable for effective Palmer amaranth contol. Sequential split-boom applications were required to achieve acceptable levels of control in these populations. A second study evaluated whether carrier volume influenced the performance of these applications by comparing mixtures of 140 L ha -1 and 280 L ha -1 . The results indicated that carrier volume did not significantly affect Palmer amaranth control at these volumes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
In populations with high auxinic resistance, split-boom application of 2,4-D and glufosinate was more effective than the conventional tank-mix application against Palmer amaranth.
Verbatim
t0“Palmer Amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri )”
e0“in populations exhibiting high auxinic resistance, the split-boom application method was more effective than the conventional tank-mix approach”
Claim · model-written summary
Control levels with these applications remained below levels considered acceptable for Palmer amaranth.
Verbatim
t0“Palmer Amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri )”
e0“control levels were still below those typically considered acceptable for effective Palmer amaranth contol”
Claim · model-written summary
Sequential split-boom applications were required to reach acceptable control in the highly resistant populations.
Verbatim
t0“Palmer Amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri )”
e0“Sequential split-boom applications were required to achieve acceptable levels of control in these populations”
Claim · model-written summary
Carrier volume (140 versus 280 L ha -1) did not significantly affect Palmer amaranth control.
- Taxon
- Palmer amaranthe0
- Treatment
- carrier volumee0
- Outcome
- Palmer amaranth controle0
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte0
- Qualifier
- 140 L ha -1 and 280 L ha -1e1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“carrier volume did not significantly affect Palmer amaranth control at these volumes”
e1“mixtures of 140 L ha -1 and 280 L ha -1”