Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:55:12.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy, Phytotoxicity, and Persistence of Imazaquin, Imazethapyr, and Clomazone in No-Till Double-Crop Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Anthony Mills  and
William W. Witt
J. Anthony Mills
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
William W. Witt
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in 1985 and 1986 to determine and compare the efficacy, phytotoxicity, and soil persistence of imazquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans. All herbicides controlled 93% or greater jimsonweed, velvetleaf, and giant foxtail. Imazaquin and imazethapyr controlled more common cocklebur and ivyleaf morningglory than clomazone. Soybeans were injured from imazaquin and imazethapyr applications in 1986 but yields were not reduced. First-order kinetics described the dissipation of each herbicide. Imazaquin and imazethapyr were more persistent in the soil than clomazone. Averaged over both years, half-lives of 10, 43, and 60 days were calculated for clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr, respectively. Clomazone was not detected 10 to 20 cm in the soil profile. More imazethapyr was detected 10 to 20 cm in the soil profile than imazaquin in 1985. Slight corn injury (≤10%) was observed in 1987 following previous year applications of imazaquin to no-till double-crop soybeans but corn yields were not reduced.

Keywords

Clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinoneimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2 -yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.jimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. ♯3 DATSTcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. ♯ XANSTivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. ♯ IPOHEvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ♯ ABUTHgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. ♯ SETFAHerbicide dissipationherbicide degradationrotational cropcropping systemsABUTHDATSTIPOHESETFAXANST
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 1989 , pp. 353 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Anonymous. 1988. Command Product Label. FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA 19103.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1987. Kentucky Agricultural Statistics. U.S. Dep. Agric. Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1987. Scepter Product Label. American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, NJ 07470.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. 1985. Technical Information Report on Pursuit. Agric. Res. Div., American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, NJ 08540.Google Scholar
5. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.Google Scholar
6. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1984. The fate of oryzalin applied to straw-mulched and nonmulched soils. Weed Sci. 32: 269–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1986. Soil reception and activity of acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor as affected by wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw and irrigation. Weed Sci. 34: 607–611.Google Scholar
8. Basham, G. W., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.Google Scholar
9. Camper, H. M., Genter, C. F., and Loope, K. E. 1972. Double cropping following winter barley harvest in eastern Virginia. Agron. J. 64:1–3.Google Scholar
10. Gunsolus, J. L., Behrens, R., Lueschen, W. E., Warnes, D. D., and Wiersma, J. V. 1986. Carryover potential of AC-263,499, DPX-F6025, FMC-57020 and imazaquin in Minnesota. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:52.Google Scholar
11. Kapusta, G. 1979. Seedbed tillage and herbicide influence on soybean (Glycine max) weed control and yield. Weed Sci. 27: 520–526.Google Scholar
12. Liebl, R. A. and Worsham, A. D. 1983. Tillage and mulch effects on morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) and certain other weed species. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:405–414.Google Scholar
13. Little, T. M. and Hills, F. J. 1978. Trend comparisons. Pages 70–74 in John Wiley and Sons, eds. Agricultural Experimentation: Design and Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
14. Lux, J. F. and Dekker, J. 1986. Varietal response of maize to FMC-57020 soil residues. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:91–92.Google Scholar
15. Ohman, M. J. and Arnold, W. E. 1986. The efficacy of FMC 57020 and metribuzin in tank-mix combinations. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:51.Google Scholar
16. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.Google Scholar
17. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
18. Reynolds, D. B., Westerman, R. B., and Murray, D. S. 1985. Rotational crop response to DPX-F6025, dimethazone, and imazaquin following their application to soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:68.Google Scholar
19. Sanford, J. O., Myhre, D. L., and Merwine, N. C. 1973. Doublecropping systems involving no-tillage and conventional tillage. Agron. J. 65:978–982.Google Scholar
20. Schroeder, J. and Banks, P. A. 1986. Persistence and activity of norflurazon and fluridone in five Georgia soils under controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 34:599–606.Google Scholar
21. Stuckey, D. J. 1976. Effect of planting depth, temperature, and cultivars on emergence and yield of double cropped soybeans. Agron. J. 68:291–294.Google Scholar
22. Thelan, K. D., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1986. Rotational crop response and volatilization with FMC-57020. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:48.Google Scholar
23. Triplett, G. B. Jr. 1978. Weed control for doublecrop soybeans planted with the no-tillage method following small grain harvest. Agron. J. 70:577–581.Google Scholar
24. Worsham, A. D. 1974. Influence of no-tillage planters on tolerance of soybeans to linuron. Weed Sci. 22:340–344.Google Scholar