Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:21:54.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economy of Weed Management Systems for Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) Control in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William K. Vencill ,
John W. Wilcut  and
C. Dale Monks
William K. Vencill
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
C. Dale Monks
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in Tifton, Midville, and Athens, GA to determine economic net returns from PRE-broadcast, PRE-banded, POST, and POST-directed herbicide treatments and inter-row cultivation in conventional-tillage soybean. Metribuzin applied PRE-broadcast was more effective for sicklepod and morningglory control than PRE-banded. Soybean net returns were not significantly reduced in two of three years in plots treated with metribuzin applied PRE-banded compared with broadcast application. The addition of POST or POST-directed herbicides increased treatment net returns over PRE-broadcast and PRE-banded metribuzin two of the three years of the study. No significant soybean injury was observed.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onesicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. # CASOBmorningglory species, Ipomoea spp.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Banded herbicide applicationnet returnsCASOBIPOZZ
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 456 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Akioka, L. M. 1992. Georgia Statistical Abstract, 1992–1993. University of Georgia. Athens.Google Scholar
2. Armstrong, D. L., Leasure, J. K., and Corbin, M. R. 1968. Economic comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control. Weed Sci. 16:369–371.Google Scholar
3. Bicki, T. J., Wax, L. M., and Sipp, S. K. 1991. Evaluation of reduced herbicide application strategies for weed control in coarse-textured soils. J. Prod. Agric. 4:516–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts. Weed Sci. 32:584–591.Google Scholar
5. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) management. Weed Sci. 35:594–598.Google Scholar
6. Bridges, D. C. 1992. Economic losses due to weeds in Southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:381–391.Google Scholar
7. 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
8. 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
9. Gunsolus, J. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybean. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 3:114–119.Google Scholar
10. Hileman, B. 1990. Alternative agriculture. Chem. Eng. News 68:26–40.Google Scholar
11. Larson, W. E. and Osborne, G. J. 1982. Tillage accomplishments and potential. p. 1–12 in Kral, D. M., ed. Predicting Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Processes. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
12. LeBaron, H. L. and Gressel, J. 1982. Practical significance and means of control of herbicide-resistant weeds. p. 309–324 in LeBaron, H. L. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
13. Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1988. Economic analysis of four weed management systems. Weed Sci. 36:846–849.Google Scholar
14. Peters, E. J., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449–458.Google Scholar
15. Peters, E. J., Davis, F. S., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1961. Interrelations of cultivations, herbicides, and methods of application for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 9:639–645.Google Scholar
16. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Poston, D. H., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Cost-efficient weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with cultivation and banded herbicide application. Weed Technol. 6:990–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Rogers, N. K., Buchanan, G. A., and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Influence of row spacing on weed competition with cotton. Weed Sci. 24:410–413.Google Scholar
19. Runge, C. F., Munson, R. D., Lotterman, E., and Creason, J. 1990. Agriculture competitiveness, farm fertilizer and chemical use, and environmental quality: a descriptive analysis. Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
20. Snipes, C. E., Colvin, D. L., Patterson, M. G., and Crawford, S. H. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to cultivation timing and frequency. Weed Technol. 6:31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Stephenson, G. R., Dykstra, M. D., McLaren, R. D., and Hamill, A. S. 1990. Agronomic practices influencing triazine-resistant weed distribution in Ontario. Weed Technol. 4:199–207.Google Scholar
22. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1990. Agricultural Resources: Inputs Situation and Outlook Report. Res. and Technol. Div., Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agric., Washington, D.C. 20025-7458, Feb. 1990, AR-17.Google Scholar
23. U.S. Dep. of Agric. 1991. Agricultural Statistics, 1991. Washington, D.C. 24. U.S. Dep. of Agric. 1993. Agricultural Resources: Inputs Situation and Outlook Report. Res. and Technol. Div., Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agric., Washington, D.C. 20025-7458, Jan. 1993, OCS-36.Google Scholar