Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:29:27.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Economic Assessment of Weed Control Strategies in No-Till Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clarence J. Swanton ,
Anil Shrestha ,
Kevin Chandler  and
William Deen
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Kevin Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
William Deen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Applying glyphosate relative to the growth stage of soybean is important for maximizing weed control and profits in glyphosate-resistant soybean under no-till systems. A study was conducted in Ontario for 4 yr to evaluate the effectiveness and gross return on the timing and sequence of applications of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant no-till soybean. Percent control of various weed species varied among years due to environmental conditions. Timing of glyphosate was critical relative to weed emergence and determined the success of the treatment in terms of optimum soybean yield and gross return. Soybean yield and gross return approximated that the critical period for weed control in glyphosate-resistant no-till soybean was the unifoliolate to the one- to three-trifoliolate stage. Sequential applications of glyphosate provided higher soybean yield and gross return than a single preplant application of glyphosate. Glyphosate applied preplant or at the unifoliolate stage followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage consistently provided maximum average soybean yield and gross return. Gross return of the sequential glyphosate treatments was also more consistent across variable soybean price scenarios. Competition from uncontrolled later emerging weeds resulted in soybean yield loss with the single preplant application of glyphosate. Competition from uncontrolled early-emerging weeds reduced soybean yields when glyphosate was applied only at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean. Overall, two weed control strategies were identified: (1) two applications of glyphosate, the first at preplant to the unifoliolate stage, followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean, (b) first application of glyphosate at the unifoliolate stage followed by a second application at the one- to three-trifoliolate stage of soybean if later emerging weeds exceeded threshold densities.

Keywords

SoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr. ‘S14-M7’Critical period of weed controlintegrated weed managementDAE, days after emergenceIWM, integrated weed managementNT, no tillPOST, postemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 755 - 763
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

Arnold, J. C., Shaw, D. R., and Medlin, C. R. 1998. Roundup Ready® programs versus conventional programs: efficacy, varietal performance, and economics. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 272–273.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 45: 329–336.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seed bank composition. Weed Sci. 44: 314–322.Google Scholar
Dahal, P. and Bradford, K. J. 1994. Hydrothermal time analysis on tomato seed germination at suboptimal temperature and reduced water potential. Seed Sci. Res. 4: 71–80.Google Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., Beighley, D. H., et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 17: 913–917.Google Scholar
Gummerson, R. J. 1986. The effect of constant temperature and osmotic potentials on the germination of sugar beet. J. Exp. Bot. 37: 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Alternative weed management strategies in conservation tillage systems for white beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 78: 363–375.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10: 957–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1988. Economic analysis of four weed management systems. Weed Sci. 36: 846–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, F. S. Jr. 1990. Reducing herbicide inputs when establishing no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4: 14–19.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. N., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS (C) 14: 159–166.Google Scholar
Nowak, P. J. 1983. Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38: 162–165.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35: 1451–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Vyn, T. J., Chandler, K., and Shrestha, A. 1998. Weed management strategies for no-till soybean (Glycine max) grown on clay soils. Weed Technol. 12: 660–669.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Wiese, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 41: 194–200.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 1999. Weed management with reduced rates of glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 478–483.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31: 476–481.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 586–593.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. S. and Worsham, A. D. 1988. Combinations of nonselective herbicides for difficult to control weeds in no-till corn, Zea mays, and soybeans, Glycine max . Weed Sci. 36: 648–652.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1987. The concept and application of the critical weed free period. In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 145–155.Google Scholar