Research was conducted from 2015 to 2017 to investigate the potential for 2,4-D and multiple herbicide resistance in a waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus(Moq.) J. D. Sauer] population from Missouri (designated MO-Ren). In the field, visual control of the MO-Ren population with 0.56 to 4.48 kg 2,4-D ha−1ranged from 26% to 77% in 2015 and from 15% to 55% in 2016. The MO-Ren population was highly resistant to chlorimuron, with visual control never exceeding 7% either year. Estimates of the 2,4-D dose required to provide 50% visual control (I50) of the MO-Ren population were 1.44 kg ha−1compared with only 0.47 kg 2,4-D ha−1for the susceptible population. Based on comparisons to a susceptible population in dose–response experiments, the MO-Ren population was approximately 3-fold resistant to 2,4-D, and 7-, 7-, 22-, and 14-fold resistant to atrazine, fomesafen, glyphosate, and mesotrione, respectively. Dicamba and glufosinate were the only two herbicides that provided effective control of the MO-Ren population in these experiments. Examinations of multiple herbicide resistance at the individual plant level revealed that 16% of the plants of the MO-Ren population contained genes stacked for six-way herbicide resistance, and only 1% of plants were classified as resistant to a single herbicide (glyphosate). Results from these experiments confirm that the MO-RenA. tuberculatuspopulation is resistant to 2,4-D, atrazine, chlorimuron, fomesafen, glyphosate, and mesotrione, making this population the third 2,4-D–resistantA. tuberculatuspopulation identified in the United States, and the first population resistant to six different herbicidal modes of action.

Target-site point mutations, gene amplification, and elevated rates of metabolism contribute to six-way resistance in the MO-Ren biotype, suggesting both target site and non-target site mechanisms contribute to multiple herbicide resistance in this Amaranthus tuberculatus biotype. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

Harvest weed seed control (HWSC) comprises a set of tools and tactics that prevents the addition of weed seed to the soil seed bank, attenuating weed infestations and providing a method to combat the development and spread of herbicide-resistant weed populations. Initial HWSC research efforts in North America are summarized and, combined with the vast area of crops suitable for HWSC, clearly indicate strong potential for this technology. However, potential limitations exist that are not present in Australian cropping systems where HWSC was developed. These include rotations with crops that are not currently amenable to HWSC (e.g. corn), high moisture content at harvest, untimely harvest, and others. Concerns about weeds becoming resistant to HWSC (i.e. adapting) exist, as do shifts in weed species composition, particularly with the diversity of weeds in North America. Currently the potential of HWSC vastly outweighs any drawbacks, necessitating further research. Such expanded efforts should foremost include chaff lining and impact mill commercial scale evaluation, as this will address potential limitations as well as economics. Growers must be integrated into large-scale, on-farm research and development activities aimed at alleviating the problems of using HWSC systems in North America and drive greater adoption subsequently.