Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:36:31.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kevin B. Kelley ,
Loyd M. Wax ,
Aaron G. Hager  and
Dean E. Riechers
Kevin B. Kelley
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Aaron G. Hager
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two studies investigated off-target exposure of soybean to plant growth regulator (PGR) herbicides and determined if simultaneous exposure to PGR herbicides and labeled soybean herbicides increase PGR injury. The PGR herbicides, 2,4-D, clopyralid, and dicamba, as well as dicamba plus the auxin transport inhibitor diflufenzopyr, were applied to glyphosate-resistant soybean at the V3, V7, and R2 soybean growth stages. Two rates were chosen from previous and preliminary research to approximate threshold rates that would cause a yield reduction so as to distinguish differences in sensitivity between growth stages. All four PGR herbicides caused significant soybean injury, height reduction, and yield loss at one or more application rates and growth stages. Relative to other PGR herbicides, dicamba reduced soybean yield at the lowest rate (a potential rate from residues remaining in improperly cleaned application equipment), followed by clopyralid, with 2,4-D requiring the highest rate to reduce soybean yield (a potential rate from a high level of spray drift). Dicamba and dicamba plus diflufenzopyr were applied at equal fractions of labeled use rates for corn to compare them directly at equivalent levels of off-target movement. Dicamba plus diflufenzopyr caused less injury and yield loss than dicamba applied alone. In a second study, the highest labeled soybean use rates of glyphosate, imazethapyr, imazamox, and fomesafen were applied alone and in combination with the highest rate of dicamba used in the first study (1% of a labeled use rate for corn) at the V3 and V7 stages. Dicamba demonstrated synergistic interactions with imazamox, imazethapyr, and fomesafen (but not with glyphosate) to further reduce yield under some circumstances, especially when applied at the V7 stage. Several treatments that included dicamba reduced soybean seed weight when applied at either the V3 or V7 stage and reduced the number of seeds per pod at the V7 stage.

Keywords

clopyralid2,4-Ddicambadiflufenzopyrfomesafenglyphosateimazamoximazethapyrcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pioneer 94B01RR’Auxinic herbicidescrop injuryherbicide interactionspray driftspray tank contaminationsynergy
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 101 - 112
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

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S. M., Clay, S. A., Wrage, L. J., and Matthees, D. 2004. Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron. J 96:750–760.Google Scholar
Auch, D. E. and Arnold, W. E. 1978. Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475.Google Scholar
Behrens, R. and Lueschen, W. E. 1979. Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E. 1987. Spray application technology. Pages 85–110 in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R. eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Weed Science Society of America Monograph 4. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. 2004. Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/fertaglime04.htm.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1981. Effects of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr, and 3,6-dicloropicolinic acid on crop seedlings. Weed Sci 29:256–261.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Cho, Y., Suh, S. K., Park, H. K., and Wood, A. 2002. Impact of 2,4-DP and BAP upon pod set and seed yield in soybean treated at reproductive stages. Plant Growth Regul 36:215–221.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1989. Dicamba, chlorsulfuron, and clopyralid as sprayer contaminants on sunflower (Helianthus annuus), mustard (Brassica juncea), and lentil (Lens culinaris), respectively. Weed Sci 37:616–621.Google Scholar
Gardner, F. P., Pearce, R. B., and Mitchell, R. L. 1985. Plant growth regulation. Pages 156–186 in Gardner, F. P., Pearce, R. B., and Mitchell, R. L. eds. Physiology of Crop Plants. 1st ed. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, K., Caspar, G., Kwiatkowski, J., and Bowe, S. J. 2002. On the mechanism of selectivity of the corn herbicide BAS 662H: a combination of the novel auxin transport inhibitor diflufenzopyr and the auxin herbicide dicamba. Pest Manage. Sci 58:1002–1014.Google Scholar
Hager, A. and Nordby, D. 2004. Soybean leaf cupping. Pest Manage. Crop Develop Bull 15:133–135. [www.ipm.uiuc.edu/bulletin/index.php].Google Scholar
Kelley, K. B., Lambert, K. N., Hager, A. G., and Riechers, D. E. 2004. Quantitative expression analysis of GH3, a gene induced by plant growth regulator herbicides in soybean. J. Agric. Food Chem 52:474–478.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. www.pestmanagement.info/nass.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., and Delannay, X. et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci 35:1451–1461.Google Scholar
Proost, R., Boerboom, C., and Schmidt, R. 2004. Dicamba Injury to Soybean. Integrated Pest and Crop Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://ipcm.wisc.edu/pubs/pest/Dicamba2004.htm.Google Scholar
Que Hee, S. S. and Sutherland, R. G. 1974. Volatilization of various esters and salts of 2,4-D. Weed Sci 22:313–318.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 7-1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Skipsey, M., Andrews, C. J., Townson, J. K., Jepson, I., and Edwards, R. 1997. Substrate and thiol specificity of a stress-inducible glutathione transferase from soybean. FEBS Lett 409:370–374.Google Scholar
Slife, F. W. 1956. The effect of 2,4-D and several other herbicides on weeds and soybeans when applied as post-emergence sprays. Weeds 4:61–68.Google Scholar
Smith, L. L. and Geronimo, J. 1977. Response of seven crops to six hormone-like herbicides. Weed Sci. Abstr. p. 32.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. 1965. Effects of chlorophenoxy herbicides on soybeans. Weeds 13:168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterling, T. M. and Hall, J. C. 1997. Mechanism of action of natural auxins and the auxinic herbicides. Pages 111–141 in Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J. eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry, and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA: IOS.Google Scholar
Tecle, B., Dacunha, A., and Shaner, D. L. 1993. Differential routes of metabolism of imidazolinones: basis for soybean (Glycine max) selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 46:120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M., Knuth, L. A., and Slife, F. W. 1969. Response of soybean to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393.Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, J. D., Triplett, G. B., and Sobotka, F. E. 1989. Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J 81:637–643.Google Scholar