Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:35:58.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Herbicide Effects on Ivyleaf Morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and Soybean (Glycine max) Growth and Water Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James C. Holloway Jr.
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Box 9555, Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Box 9555, Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Address correspondence to D. R. Shaw.

Abstract

Soybean and ivyleaf morningglory were grown alone and together to quantify water use and growth after treatment with soil-applied chlorimuron plus metribuzin, imazaquin, or no herbicide. Soybean water consumption was 22 ml pot−1 day−1 or more when grown alone or with another soybean, regardless of herbicide treatment. Ivyleaf morningglory grown alone or with another ivyleaf morningglory consumed ≥ 32 ml water pot−1 day−1 when no herbicide was applied. Treatment with chlorimuron plus metribuzin or imazaquin reduced ivyleaf morningglory water consumption to ≤ 4 ml pot−1 day−1. Water use was reduced with either herbicide when soybean and ivyleaf morningglory were grown together, indicating little or no water consumption by ivyleaf morningglory. Ivyleaf morningglory height, root length, leaf area, and dry matter were reduced by imazaquin or chlorimuron plus metribuzin. Soybean leaf area was also reduced by herbicide treatment or the presence of another plant. Soybean biomass was not reduced in any planting combination, except when two soybean were grown together and treated with imazaquin. Nontreated ivyleaf morningglory partitioned more biomass into the shoots than roots. Ivyleaf morningglory responded to herbicide treatment by partitioning more biomass into roots.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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.)

Footnotes

Approved for publication as Journal Article No. J-8699 of the Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Sta., Mississippi State Univ. This research was a part of state project MIS 2357, and was funded by the Mississippi Soybean Promotion Board. Research conducted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Ph.D. degree in Weed Science at Mississippi State Univ.

References

Literature Cited

1. Adcock, T. E., Banks, P. A., and Bridges, D. C. 1990. Effects of preemergence herbicides on soybean (Glycine max): Weed competition. Weed Sci. 38: 108112.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Hartwig, E. E. 1976. Screening soybeans for tolerance to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68: 351353.Google Scholar
3. Begg, J. E. and Turner, N. C. 1976. Crop water deficits. Adv. Agron. 28: 161217.Google Scholar
4. Cordes, R. C. and Bauman, T. T. 1984. Field competition between ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 364370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Davis, R. G., Johnson, W. C., and Wood, F. O. 1967. Weed root profile. Agron. J. 59: 555556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27: 206212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Griffin, J. L. and Habetz, R. J. 1989. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 459462.Google Scholar
8. Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci. 36: 345353.Google Scholar
9. Holloway, J. C. Jr., Shaw, D. R., and Hydrick, D. E. 1993. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference in soybean after soil-applied herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 281.Google Scholar
10. Holloway, J. C. Jr. and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Effect of soil- applied herbicides on ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:in press.Google Scholar
11. Holloway, J. C. Jr. and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Influence of soil-applied herbicides on ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) growth and development in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43: 655659.Google Scholar
12. Holm, L. 1977. Weeds and water in world food production. Weed Sci. 25: 338342.Google Scholar
13. Jones, R. E. and Walker, R. H. 1993. Effect of interspecific interference, light intensity, and soil moisture on soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) water uptake. Weed Sci. 41: 534540.Google Scholar
14. Kramer, P. J. 1980. Drought, stress, and the origin of adaptations. Pages 720 in Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J., eds. Adaptations of Plants to Water and High Temperature Stress. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
15. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production: Manual of Methods. Dr. W. Junk N. V. Publ., the Hague.Google Scholar
16. Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., Cothren, J. T., and Hons, F. M. 1987. Soybean (Glycine max)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interspecific competition. Weed Sci. 35: 647653.Google Scholar
17. Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybeans. I. Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 24: 482488.Google Scholar
18. Patterson, D. T. 1988. Growth and water relations of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) during simulated drought and recovery. Weed Sci. 36: 318324.Google Scholar
19. Patterson, D. T. and Highsmith, M. T. 1989. Competition of spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) during simulated drought and recovery. Weed Sci. 37: 658664.Google Scholar
20. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Chapter 5. Limiting factors and physiological responses to competition. Pages 139194 in Weed Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
21. Stuart, B. L., Harrison, S. K., Abernathy, J. R., Krieg, D. R., and Wendt, C. W. 1984. The response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) water relations to smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) competition. Weed Sci. 32: 126132.Google Scholar
22. Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14: 4951.Google Scholar
23. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition. A review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 195 pp.Google Scholar