Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:28:24.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Weeds and Soybeans to Vernolate and Other Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

B. J. Johnson
B. J. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Georgia Sta., Experiment, Georgia 30212
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vernolate (S-propyl dipropylthiocarbamate) injected into a sandy loam soil controlled a higher percentage of early weeds in soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) in 2 years out of 3 when compared with incorporated vernolate at the same rate by conventional methods. Late season weed control was enhanced by split applications of herbicides applied postemergence in sequence with vernolate. Chloroxuron (3-[p-(p-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-1,1-dimethylurea) applied early postemergence plus 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea (linuron) or 2,4-bis-(isopropylamino)-6-(methylthio)-s-triazine (prometryne) applied in split applications as late and layby treatments gave the best weed control. Prometryne caused chlorotic veination in the upper leaves of the plants each year. In 1970, when prometryne was applied in sequence with incorporated vernolate, soybean plants were injured 30% compared with only 8% injury when the same herbicide was applied in sequence with injected vernolate at the same rate. The average seed yields were higher from injected vernolate at 1.12 kg/ha than from incorporated vernolate at 2.24 kg/ha. There was no difference in yield when vernolate was incorporated or injected at the same rate. Seed yields from the 3-year average were lower from plots treated with prometryne than from plots treated with linuron or 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (dinoseb). Generally, the soybean seed quality was lower and seed size smaller when herbicide treatments failed to control weeds throughout the growing season.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , July 1971 , pp. 372 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
2. Dowler, C. C. and Hauser, E. W. 1970. An injector-planter for subsurface placement of herbicides. Weed Sci. 18:461–464.Google Scholar
3. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F test. Biometrics 11:1–42.Google Scholar
4. Hauser, E. W. 1965. Preemergence activity of three thiocarbamate herbicides in relation to depth of placement in the soil. Weeds 13:255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hauser, E. W., Butler, J. L., Shepherd, J. L., and Parham, S. A. 1966. Response of yellow nutsedge, Florida pusley, and peanut to thiocarbamate herbicides as affected by method of placement in soil. Weed Res. 6:338–345.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W., Samples, L. E., and Parham, S. A. 1969. Incorporated versus subsurface vernolate for weed control in peanuts. Weed Res. 9:173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Robinson, C. W. and Gossett, B. J. 1969. Influence of vernolate on the selectivity of chloroxuron with surfactant for weed control in soybeans. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:120.Google Scholar
8. Wooten, O. B. and McWhorter, C. G. 1961. A device for subsurface application of herbicides. Weeds 9:36–41.Google Scholar