Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:07:22.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of recovery treatments on dicamba-injured soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2021

Brian R. Dintelmann ,
Shea T. Farrell  and
Kevin W. Bradley Open the ORCID record for Kevin W. Bradley [Opens in a new window]
Brian R. Dintelmann
Affiliation:
Senior Research Associate, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Shea T. Farrell
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Kevin W. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Kevin W. Bradley, Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, 201 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO 65211 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Non-dicamba-resistant soybean yield loss resulting from dicamba off-target injury has become an increasing concern for soybean growers in recent years. After off-target dicamba movement occurs onto sensitive soybean, little information is available on tactics that could be used to mitigate the cosmetic or yield losses that may occur. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2019 to determine whether certain recovery treatments of fungicide, plant growth hormone, macro- and micronutrient fertilizer combinations, or weekly irrigation could reduce dicamba injury and/or result in similar yield to soybean that was not injured with dicamba. Simulated drift events of dicamba (5.6 g ae ha−1) were applied to non-dicamba-resistant soybean once they reached the V3 or R2 stages of growth. Recovery treatments were applied approximately 14 d after the simulated drift event. Weekly irrigation was the only recovery treatment that provided appreciable levels of injury reduction or increases in soybean height or yield compared to the dicamba-injured plants. Weekly irrigation following the R2 dicamba injury event resulted in an 1% to 14% increase in soybean yield compared with the dicamba-injured control. All other recovery treatments resulted in soybean yields that were similar to the dicamba-injured control, and similar to or lower than the nontreated control. Results from this study indicate that if soybean have become injured with dicamba, weekly irrigation will help soybean recover some of the yield loss and reduce injury symptoms that resulted from off-target dicamba movement, especially in a year with below average precipitation. However, yield loss will likely not be restored to that of noninjured soybean.

Keywords

DicambasoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.Off-target movementdriftyieldrecoverirrigation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 1 - 7
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JPA, de Santana, DG, Pinto, LAT, Guimarães, F, Zaric, M (2017) Dicamba spray drift as influenced by wind speed and nozzle type. Weed Technol 31:724–731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, DA, Ethridge, WJ (1978) Irrigation effects on vegetative and reproductive development of three soybean cultivars. Agron J 70:467–471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, R, Lueschen, W (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bish, MD, Farrell, ST, Lerch, RN, Bradley, KW (2019) Dicamba losses to air after applications to soybean under stable and non-stable atmospheric conditions. J Environ Quality 48:1675–1682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, K (2017) Ag industry, do we have a problem yet? https://ipm.missouri.edu/ipcm/2017/7/ag_industry_do_we_have_a_problem_yet/ Accessed: January 12, 2021Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2018) Dicamba injured crops and plants becoming more evident: June 15th update. https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2018/6/dicambaInjuryUpdate/, Accessed: January 12, 2021Google Scholar
Buzzello, GL, Trezzi, MM, Bittencourt, HH, Patel, F, Miotto, JE (2017) Development and yield of soybean due to the application of indole-butyric acid, gibberellic acid and kinetin. Revista Agrar 37:225–233 Google Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate-resistance horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492–496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S, Nyquist, W, Walker, W (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two-or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, GT, Reynolds, DB, Mueller, TC (2017) Evaluation of dicamba persistence among various agricultural hose types and cleanout procedures using soybean (Glycine max) as a bio-indicator. Weed Sci 65:305–316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enderson, JT, Mallarino, AP, Haq, MU (2015) Soybean yield response to foliar-applied micronutrients and relationships among soil and tissue tests. Agron J 107:2143–2161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, J, Koopman, Z, Miller, L (2016) On-farm corn and soybean plant growth regulator trials. Farm Progress Rep 2015 (1):39–40Google Scholar
Foster, MR, Griffin, JL (2019) Changes in soybean yield components in response to dicamba. Agrosyst Geosci Environ 2:1–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, MR, Griffin, JL, Copes, JT, Blouin, DC (2019) Development of a model to predict soybean yield loss from dicamba exposure Weed Technol 33:287–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, R, Hanway, JJ (1976) Foliar fertilization of soybeans during the seed-filling period. Agron J 68:653–657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, BK, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2018) Influence of glyphosate/dicamba application rate and timing on the control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed in glyphosate/dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 32:678–682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K (2010) Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans. Crop Manag 9:1–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, YR, Mueller, DS, Hart, CE, Bestor, NR, Bradley, CA, Ames, KA, Giesler, LJ, Wise, KA (2016) Analyses of yield and economic response from foliar fungicide and insecticide applications to soybean in the North Central United States. Plant Health Prog 17:232–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR (2018) Soybean response to dicamba: A meta-analysis. Weed Technol 32:507–512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korte, LL, Williams, JH, Specht, JE, Sorensen, RC (1983) Irrigation of soybean genotypes during reproductive ontogeny I. Agronomic responses. Crop Sci 23:521–527 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krogmeier, MJ, McCarty, GW, Bremner, JM (1989) Phytotoxicity of foliar-applied urea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:8189–8191 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallarino, AP, Haq, MU, Wittry, D, Bermudez, M (2001) Variation in soybean response to early season foliar fertilization among and within fields. Agron J 93:1220–1226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCown, S, Barber, T, Norsworthy, JK (2018) Response of non-dicamba-resistant soybean to dicamba as influenced by growth stage and herbicide rate. Weed Technol 32:513–519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Climatic Data Center. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals. Accessed: December 12, 2020Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipitan, OA, Scott, JE, Knezevic, SZ (2019) Glyphosate-resistant soybean response to micro-rates of three dicamba-based herbicides. Agrosyst Geosci Environ 2:1–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526–536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454–464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of dicamba and dicamba plus glyphosate combinations on the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Technol 27:675–681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Siefert-Higgins, S, Bradley, KW (2014) Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) management in dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 28:131–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staton, M, Seamon, M (2016) 2016 On-farm research report. https://www.canr.msu.edu/soybeans/uploads/files/2016_SMaRT_Research_Report_Final.pdf Accessed: January 12, 2021Google Scholar
Vink, JP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2012) Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosisa trifida) control in dicamba-tolerant soybean. Weed Technol 26: 422–428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB Jr, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar