Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T06:48:21.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Diphenylether Herbicide Application Rate and Timing on Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Control in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aaron G. Hager ,
Loyd M. Wax ,
German A. Bollero  and
Edward W. Stoller
Aaron G. Hager*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
German A. Bollero
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Edward W. Stoller
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diphenylether herbicides may be viable options for postemergence (POST) control of common waterhemp in soybean. A 2-yr field research project was conducted to determine whether common waterhemp control is influenced by application timing and rate of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Common waterhemp control was 9, 9, and 8% greater 7, 14, and 21 d after treatment, respectively, after the early postemergence (EPOST) application timing compared with the POST application timing. Lactofen provided greater common waterhemp control than did acifluorfen or fomesafen, and only the highest application of lactofen provided greater than 85% common waterhemp control 21 d after POST application. No significant differences in common waterhemp dry weight were determined among the three rates of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen applied EPOST. The highest application rates of fomesafen and lactofen reduced common waterhemp dry weight more than did the lowest application rates applied POST. The highest application rate of fomesafen also reduced common waterhemp dry weight more than did the intermediate application rate. Single degree of freedom contrasts indicated that all diphenylether herbicides reduced common waterhemp dry weight more than did imazethapyr.

Keywords

Acifluorfenfomesafenimazethapyrlactofencommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer #3 AMATAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrPostemergenceherbicide application rateherbicide application timingweed controlALS, acetolactate synthaseCOC, crop oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergenceNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 14 - 20
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

Ahrens, W. H., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1981. Identification of triazine-resistant Amaranthus spp. Weed Sci. 29: 345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. D., Roeth, F. W., and Martin, A. R. 1996. Occurrence and control of triazine-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10: 570–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81: 665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46: 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. 2nd ed. New York: Botanical Garden. pp. 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Stoller, E. W. 1997. Waterhemp Management in Agronomic Crops. University of Illinois Bull. X855. 12 p.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47: 578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J., Gao, Z., Peterson, D. E., and Maddux, L. D. 1998. Hophornbeam copperleaf (Acalypha ostryifolia) biology and control. Weed Technol. 12: 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Chessman, D. J., and Wax, L. M. 1994. Pigweed Identification: A Pictorial Guide to the Common Pigweeds of the Great Plains. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. 12 p.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42: 523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9: 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36: 770–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12: 126–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nave, W. R. and Wax, L. M. 1971. Effect of weeds on soybean yield and harvesting efficiency. Weed Sci. 19: 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, D. B. and Owen, M. D. K. 1999. Species circumscriptions of common and tall waterhemp. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 171.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. 1957. Recent migration and evolution of the dioecious Amaranths. Evolution 11: 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33: 654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an acetolactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Res. 37: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest—distribution, importance, and management. Proc. Iowa Integrated Crop Manag. Conf. 7: 239–242.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Hager, A. G., and Stoller, E. W. 1997. Control of an ALS-resistant waterhemp biotype in soybean with glyphosate. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 126.Google Scholar