Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:56:19.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Management Programs in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason T. Beyers
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Field trials were conducted at two sites in both 1997 and 1998 to evaluate soybean response and weed control with glufosinate alone or combined with quizalofop, lactofen, imazethapyr, flumiclorac, or bentazon plus acifluorfen in narrow-row, glufosinate-resistant soybean. Soybean injury ranged from 0 to 21% at 2 wk after treatment (WAT) and from 0 to 5% by 4 WAT. Glufosinate alone at 0.29 and 0.4 kg ai/ha controlled velvetleaf, common waterhemp, common ragweed, morningglory species, and giant foxtail greater than 85% in all studies. Mixtures containing glufosinate and other herbicides controlled these species greater than 81% but did not improve control over glufosinate alone. Estimates of weed biomass closely reflected visual control evaluations. However, giant foxtail biomass was higher for mixtures of glufosinate plus lactofen, flumiclorac, or bentazon and acifluorfen, indicating possible antagonism of glufosinate activity. At both locations, soybean yields were similar among most treatments, but that of the glufosinate plus lactofen treatment was lower when compared with other treatments. Additional trials evaluated soybean response and weed control with a preemergence herbicide followed by glufosinate postemergence (POST), glufosinate applied once or twice POST, and mixtures of glufosinate plus imazethapyr or flumiclorac POST in wide-row soybean. Glufosinate applied twice controlled common waterhemp, morningglory species, prickly sida, common cocklebur, and giant foxtail up to 39% greater than did glufosinate applied once. The addition of imazethapyr, but not flumiclorac, to glufosinate improved weed control when compared with glufosinate alone.

Type
Research
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

Acaster, M. A. and Weitzman, P.D.J. 1985. Kinetic analysis of glutamine synthetases from various plants. Fed. Eur. Biochem. Soc. Lett. 189: 241244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr., and Godley, F. M. 1984. Control of annual morningglories (Ipomoea spp.) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 813818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 642647.Google Scholar
Bruff, S. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1992a. Early season herbicide applications for weed control in stale seedbed soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 3644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruff, S. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1992b. Tank-mix combinations for weed control in stale seedbed soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 4551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14: 7788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, G. 1996. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effect of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 44: 797803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, P. and Muller, F. 1987. Behavior of glufosinate ammonium in weeds. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 10: 10751082.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Wait, J. D., Holman, C. S., Niekamp, J. W., and Bradley, P. R. 1997. Weed control programs in glufosinate-tolerant soybeans. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 234235.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G., Chadbourne, E., and Weber, M. L. 1997. Weed control in glufosinate-resistant soybean with glufosinate, flumiclorac, and V-53482 combinations. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54: 236237.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8: 1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minton, B. W., Kurtz, M. E., and Shaw, D. R. 1989. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with grass and broadleaf herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 37: 223227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1998. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 46: 587594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Hagood, E. S. 2000. Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol. 14: 667674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. 2001. Weed management systems utilizing glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15: 8994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. T., ed. 1993. In Agricultural Chemicals. Book II Herbicides. Fresno, CA: Thomson Publications. pp. 237238.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15: 122128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar