Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T01:03:34.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed control with reduced rates of imazaquin and imazethapyr in no-till narrow-row soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William G. Johnson ,
Jeffrey S. Dilbeck ,
Michael S. DeFelice  and
J. Andrew Kendig
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy. University of Missiouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Jeffrey S. Dilbeck
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Michael S. DeFelice
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
J. Andrew Kendig
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at three locations in 1993 and 1994 to evaluate weed control and crop response to metolachlor plus combinations of 0.5 × and 1 × label rates of imazaquin applied preplant and imazethapyr applied early postemergence or postemergence in no-till narrow-row soybean production. Giant foxtail, common ragweed, common cocklebur, and large crabgrass population reductions were greater with sequential preplant metolachlor plus imazaquin followed by early postemergence or postemergence imazethapyr than with preplant metolachlor plus imazaquin or early postemergence/postemergence imazethapyr alone. Ivyleaf morningglory was not effectively controlled by any herbicide program. Pennsylvania smartweed populations were reduced with all herbicide treatments. Soybean yields with treatments utilizing 0.5 × rates were usually equal to 1 × rates if imazethapyr was applied early postemergence or postemergence. Net income with reduced herbicide rates was equal to full-label rates and provided no greater risk to net income.

Keywords

Imazaquinimazethapyrmetolachlorcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium XANSTcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi L. SETFAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea L. IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis DIGSAPennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pensylvanicum L. POLPYsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pioneer 9381,’ ‘Pioneer 9443,’ ‘Asgrow 5560.’Narrow rowno-tillreduced herbicide ratesXANSTAMBELSETFAIPOHEDIGSAPOLPY
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 105 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control in soybean (Glycine max) with reduced rates of bentazon and cultivation. Weed Sci. 41: 447–453.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27: 562–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12: 109–112.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B. and DeFelice, M. S. 1991. Timing of chlorimuron and imazaquin application in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39: 232–237.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with below-label rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37: 365–374.Google Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddox, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 834–840.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. A. 1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 2: 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. 1991. Maximizing herbicide efficiency with mixtures and expert systems. Weed Technol. 5: 894–897.Google Scholar
Howe, O. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci. 35: 185–193.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Massey, R. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Becker, C. B. 1998. Weed control and economic returns with postemergence herbicides in narrow-row soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. In press.Google Scholar
Kendig, A. and Johnson, B. 1996. Weed Control Guide for Missouri Field Crops. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Service Bull. MP-575. 95 p.Google Scholar
Murphy, T. R. and Gossett, B. J. 1981. Influence of shading by soybeans (Glycine max) on weed suppression. Weed Sci. 29: 610–615.Google Scholar
Muyonga, C. M., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1996. Weed control with reduced rates of four soil applied soybean herbicides. Weed Sci. 44: 148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. J., Gebhart, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacing, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weed 14: 285–289.Google Scholar
Plain, R., Kennel, J., and White, J. 1995. 1994 Custom Rates for Farm Services in Missouri. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Bull. G302. 11 p.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Meade, J. A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7: 365–369.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, p. 287.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 541–545.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39: 195–199.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Missouri Farm Facts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 74 p.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Nave, W. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide row soybeans. Weed Sci. 25: 73–77.Google Scholar
Westburg, D. E., Oliver, L. R., and Frans, R. E. 1989. Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 678–685.Google Scholar