Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:35:03.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Incorporation Methods and Time of Application on the Performance of Trifluralin Plus Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. R. Williford
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Stoneville, MS 38776

Abstract

Disk harrowing, spring tooth harrowing, and bed conditioning, alone or followed by bedding the rows, were evaluated in field studies to determine their efficacy to soil incorporate trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) plus metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazine-5 (4H)-one] in soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Effects of the time interval between herbicide application and soybean planting were also evaluated. Effective weed control and adequate crop selectivity were obtained from all incorporation methods except those followed by bedding. Bedding occasionally reduced weed control and soybean stands as compared to incorporation without bedding. Excessive crop injury resulted from the application of a band of the herbicide mixture as a subsurface layer. The herbicide mixture was applied up to 6 weeks before soybean planting without adversely affecting crop or weed selectivity when incorporated with the spring tooth harrow without bedding.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Soybean weed control with metribuzin and preplanting herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:88.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. and McWhorter, C. G., 1974. Cocklebur control with BAY-94337 and bentazon in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:104.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L., Wooten, O. B., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1965. Evaluation of soil incorporators. Mississippi Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 702 6pp.Google Scholar
4. Barrentine, W. L., Wooten, O. B., and Williford, J. R. 1968. Evaluation studies of soil incorporation with dye tracer techniques. Mississippi Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 54. 1400.Google Scholar
5. Bode, L. E. and Gebhardt, M. R. 1969. Equipment for incorporation of herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:551555.Google Scholar
6. Coble, H. D. and Schrader, J. W. 1973. Soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 21:308309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Jones, M. L., Barrentine, J. L., Edmondson, J. B., Keaton, J. A., Pafford, J. L., and Webster, H. L. 1974. Trifluralin + metribuzin applied preplant soil incorporated for weed control of soybeans. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. No. 286.Google Scholar
8. Ladlie, J. S., Meggett, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil. Weed Sci. 24:505507.Google Scholar
9. Ladlie, J. S., Meggett, W. F., and Penner, D. 1977. Effect of trifluralin and metribuzin combinations on soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 25:8893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. McWhorter, C. G. and Anderson, J. M. 1976. Effectiveness of metribuzin applied preemergence for economical control of common cocklebur in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:385390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Rogers, R. L., Sloane, L. W., and Zaunbrecker, S. 1971. Performance of BAY-94337 and bentazon in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 24:73.Google Scholar
12. Schrader, J. W. and Haskins, W. F. 1974. Cocklebur control in soybeans with metribuzin and bentazon. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:9299.Google Scholar
13. Webster, H. L., Edmondson, J. B., Gesink, R. W., Jones, M. L., and Walker, J. C. 1973. Trifluralin and metribuzin for broad spectrum weed control in soybeans. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 28:6063.Google Scholar