Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:03:31.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of Soybean (Glycine max) and Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to Fall-Applied Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark U. Magnusson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genetics, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108

Abstract

The influence of fall (late September or late October)-applied dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) on spring-planted soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) was studied at five sites in Minnesota during 1983 and 1984. At the two southern Minnesota locations, only late-October applications of dicamba at the highest rate (4.5 kg ae/ha) reduced yields of spring-planted soybean and sunflower. At the central and the two northern Minnesota locations, both late-September and late-October applications of dicamba at 1.1 kg/ha and higher caused injury and yield reductions to soybean and sunflower planted the following year. The two southern Minnesota locations had generally higher levels of precipitation, higher temperatures, higher organic matter soils, and lower pH levels compared to the central and northern Minnesota locations. These climatic and soil characteristics reduced dicamba persistence at the two southern Minnesota locations.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technolgy
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Burnside, O. C. and Lavy, T. L. 1966. Dissipation of dicamba. Weeds 14:211214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Corbin, F. T. and Upchurch, R. P. 1967. Influence of pH on detoxication of herbicides in soil. Weeds 15:370377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Donaldson, T. W. and Foy, C. L. 1965. The phytotoxicity and persistence in soils of benzoic acid herbicides. Weeds 13:195202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Friesen, H. A. 1965. The movement and persistence of dicamba in soil. Weeds 13:3033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hahn, R. R., Burnside, O. C., and Lavy, T. L. 1969. Dissipation and phytotoxicity of dicamba. Weed Sci. 17:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Harris, C. I. 1964. Movement of dicamba and diphenamid in soils. Weeds 12:112115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Parker, C. and Hodgson, G. L. 1966. Some studies on the fate of picloram and dicamba in soils underlying bracken. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 8:614615.Google Scholar
8. Schweizer, E. E. and Swink, J. F. 1971. Field bindweed control with dicamba and 2,4-D, and crop response to chemical residues. Weed Sci. 19:717721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Smith, A. E. 1973. Transformation of dicamba in Regina heavy clay. J. Agric. Food Chem. 21:708710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Smith, A. E. 1973. Degradation of dicamba in prairie soils. Weed Res. 13:373378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Smith, A. E. 1974. Breakdown of the herbicide dicamba and its degradation product 3,6-dichlorosalicyclic acid in prairie soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 22:601605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Smith, A. E. 1975. Microbiological degradation of the herbicide dicamba in moist soils at different temperatures. Weed Res. 15:5962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar