Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:11:37.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigations of the Potential Interactions Between Pre-emergence Residual Herbicides, Variety, and Seed Treatments in Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2018

Blake R. Barlow ,
Lovreet S. Shergill Open the ORCID record for Lovreet S. Shergill [Opens in a new window] ,
Mandy D. Bish  and
Kevin W. Bradley
Blake R. Barlow
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Lovreet S. Shergill*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Mandy D. Bish
Affiliation:
Senior Research Specialist, 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: Lovreet S. Shergill, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were performed in 2016 and 2017 in Missouri to determine whether interactions exist between PRE herbicides and seed treatments in soybean. The experiments consisted of a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangements of varieties, seed treatments, and herbicides. We selected two genetically similar varieties of soybean, one with known tolerance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides and one with known sensitivity. Each variety of seed received three separate seed treatment mixtures (STMs): (1) STM1, imidacloprid plus prothioconazol+penflufen+metalaxyl plus metalaxyl plus Bacillus subtilis+B. pumilis, (2) STM2, Pasteuria nishizawae plus thiamethoxam plus prothioconazol+penflufen+metalaxyl plus metalaxyl plus B. subtilis+B. pumilis, and (3) STM3, fluopyram plus imidacloprid plus prothioconazol+penflufen+metalaxyl plus metalaxyl plus B. subtilis+B. pumilis. Chlorimuron-ethyl+flumioxazin+pyroxasulfone, chlorimuron-ethyl+flumioxazin+metribuzin, and chlorimuron-ethyl+sulfentrazone were applied PRE to each variety and seed treatment combination at 1× and 2× the labeled use rate. Chlorimuron-ethyl+sulfentrazone treatment at the 2× rate resulted in greater injury of 8% and 14% to the sensitive variety than the tolerant in 2016 and 2017, respectively; this was the highest injury observed from any herbicide treatment in either year. In 2017, chlorimuron-ethyl+sulfentrazone resulted in the greatest height reductions in both varieties, but this reduction was more evident in the sensitive (19%) than in the tolerant (6%) variety. Overall, yield differences between the two varieties were not consistent between years, and for both varieties, the sulfentrazone-containing treatments resulted in the highest yield losses. The results of this research indicate that there is a larger interaction between herbicides and varieties than there is between herbicides and seed treatments, or seed treatments and varieties.

Keywords

William Johnson, Purdue UniversityChlorimuron-ethylflumioxazinfluopyramimidaclopridmetalaxylmetribuzinPasteuria nishizawaepenflufenprothioconazolpyroxasulfonesulfentrazonethiamethoxamsoybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrPRE-herbicidesseed treatmentILeVO™Gaucho™Clariva™phytotoxicity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 570 - 578
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Anonymous (2013) The role of seed treatment in modern U.S. crop production. https://croplifefoundation.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/the-role-of-seed-treatment-in-modern-u-s-crop-production/. Accessed: November 23, 2016Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016a) Herbicide x Variety Guide. https://www.pioneer.com/CMRoot/Pioneer/US/products/stewardship/2016-soybean-herbicide-guide-ProdList.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2017Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016b) Innovation in practice since 1926. http://www.seedgrowth.bayer.com/~/media/SeedGrowth/Bayer100YearsFlash/index.ashx?iframe=true&width=995&height=700. Accessed: October 21, 2016Google Scholar
Belfry, KD, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2016) Identity-preserved soybean tolerance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol 30:137–147 Google Scholar
Bradley, CA (2008) Effect of fungicide seed treatments on stand establishment, seedling disease, and yield of soybean in North Dakota. Plant Disease 92:120–125 Google Scholar
Bradley, CA, Wax, LM, Ebelhar, SA, Bollero, GA, Pedersen, WL (2001) The effect of fungicide seed protectants, seeding rates, and reduced rates of herbicides on no-till soybean. Crop Prot 20:615–622 Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2013) Herbicide resistance in the Midwest: current status and impacts, in Proceedings of Annual Meeting of Weed Science Society of America. Baltimore, Maryland: Weed Science Society of America. http://wssaabstracts.com/public/17/proceedings.html Google Scholar
Burnside, OC (1972) Tolerance of soybean cultivars to weed competition and herbicides. Weed Sci 20:294–297 Google Scholar
Buttress, F, Dennis, R (1947) The early history of cereal seed treatment in England. Agricultural History 21:93–103 Google Scholar
Coble, H, Schrader, J (1973) Soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci 21:308–309 Google Scholar
Dayan, FE, Weete, JD, Duke, SO, Hancock, HG (1997) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641 Google Scholar
Houghton, D (2004) Smart seed coatings. http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NSD/LNDC/furrowjan2004.pdf Google Scholar
Hulting, A, Wax, L, Stoller, E (1997) Tolerance levels of soybean cultivars to sulfentrazone Proc North Cent Weed Sci Soc 52:37.Google Scholar
Hulting, AG, Wax, LM, Nelson, RL, Simmons, FW (2001) Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivar tolerance to sulfentrazone. Crop Prot 20:679–683 Google Scholar
Kandel, YR, Mueller, DS, Legleiter, T, Johnson, WG, Young, BG, Wise, KA (2018) Impact of fluopyram fungicide and preemergence herbicides on soybean injury, population, sudden death syndrome, and yield. Crop Prot 106:103–109 Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Bradley, KW, Massey, RE (2009) Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control and economic returns with herbicide programs in soybean. Weed Technol 23:54–61 Google Scholar
Maienfisch, P, Brandl, F, Kobel, W, Rindlisbacher, A, Senn, R (1999) CGA 293’343: A novel, broad-spectrum neonicotinoid insecticide. Pages 177–209 in Yamamoto I and Casida JE, eds. Nicotinoid Insecticides and the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor. Tokyo: Springer Japan Google Scholar
Niekamp, JW, Johnson, WG (2001) Weed management with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soyabean (Glycine max). Crop Prot 20:215–220 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 Google Scholar
Reiling, KL, Simmons, FW, Riechers, DE, Steckel, LE (2006) Application timing and soil factors affect sulfentrazone phytotoxicity to two soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivars. Crop Prot 25:230–234 Google Scholar
Roy, KW, Hershman, DE, Rupe, JC, Abney, TS (1997) Sudden death syndrome of soybean. Plant Disease 81:1100–1111 Google Scholar
Salzman, FP, Renner, KA (1992) Response of soybean to combinations of clomazone, metribuzin, linuron, alachlor, and atrazine. Weed Technol 6:922–929 Google Scholar
Schultz, JL, Myers, DB, Bradley, KW (2015) Influence of soybean seeding rate, row spacing, and herbicide programs on the control of resistant waterhemp in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:169–176 Google Scholar
Swantek, JM, Sneller, CH, Oliver, LR (1998) Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci 46:271–277 Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Nelson, R (2001) Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol 15:95–102 Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture UERSa (2016a) Agriculture resource management survey, 1996–2012 in USDA ERSa ed.: Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Ag_Resource_Management/ Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2016b) 2015 Agricultural chemical use survey: Soybeans. National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2015_Cotton_Oats_Soybeans_Wheat_Highlights/ChemUseHighlights_Soybeans_2015.pdf Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2017) 2017 Agriculture chemical use survey: Soybeans. National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2017_Cotton_Soybeans_Wheat_Highlight/ChemUseHighlights_Soybeans_2017.pdf Google Scholar
Wise, K, Mueller, DS, Kandel, Y, Young, B, Johnson, B, Legleiter, T (2015) Soybean seedling damage: is there an interaction between the ILeVO seed treatment and pre-emergence herbicides? Integrated Crop Management News: Iowa State University Google Scholar
Zhaohu, L, Walker, R, Wehtje, G (1997) Laboratory studies for predicting response of soybean cultivars to sulfentrazone. Pages 177–178 in Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society Meeting. Houston, Texas: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar