Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:49:12.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cultivation Enhances Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263,222

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Larry J. Newsom
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Box 9555, Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Box 9555, Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762

Abstract

Cultivations in conjunction with POST applications of AC 263,222 were evaluated for their effects on sicklepod and pitted morningglory control and soybean yield. Cultivation alone controlled sicklepod and pitted morningglory season-long no more than 30%. In most instances, one cultivation with herbicides improved sicklepod and pitted morningglory control compared with no cultivation, but two cultivations did not further improve control. Two applications of AC 263,222 at 9 or 13 g ai/ha per application with a single cultivation caused the most soybean injury and were no more efficacious than imazaquin applied PRE followed by 9 g/ha AC 263,222. Imazaquin applied PRE followed by AC 263,222 at 18 g/ha plus one or two cultivations were the only treatments that controlled sicklepod and pitted morningglory more than 90% season-long. Cultivation in combination with herbicides increased yields over that of herbicides used alone. Soybean yield was the highest following imazaquin applied PRE followed by AC 263,222 at 9 g/ha plus two cultivations.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. K. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 32:584591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:531535.Google Scholar
3. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey—southern slates. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:400404.Google Scholar
4. Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., Vidrine, P. R., and Bruff, S. A. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) control with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 7:331336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Howe, O. W. III and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci. 35:185193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Miller, D. K. and Griffin, J. L. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar response to AC 263,222 as influenced by supplemental irrigation. Weed Technol. 7:920924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Newsom, L. J., Shaw, D. R., and Hubbard, T. F. Jr. 1993. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of AC 263,222 in peanut (Arachis hypogaea), soybean (Glycine max), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 41:523527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Influence of cultivation timing on weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 8:760765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Soybean (Glycine max) response to AC 263,222 and chlorimuron as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Technol. 9:553560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Peters, E. J., Davis, F. S., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1961. Interrelations of cultivations, herbicides, and methods of application of weed control in soybeans. Weeds 9:639645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Shaw, D. R. 1987. Sicklepod control in soybeans with Canopy, Scepter, and Classic. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep., Vol. 12(20). 4 p.Google Scholar
12. Shaw, D. R. and Coats, G. E. 1988. Herbicides and cultivation for sicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia, control in soybeans. Glycine max . Weed Technol. 2:187190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Shaw, D. R. and Wixson, M. B. 1991. Postemergence combinations of imazaquin or imazethapyr with AC 263,222 for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:644649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Shaw, D. R., Newsom, L.J., and Smith, C. A. 1991. Influence of cultivation timing on chemical control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:6772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. K. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32:95100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Staniforth, D. W. and Wiese, A. F. 1985. Chapter 2: Weed biology and its relationship to weed control in limited-tillage systems. p. 1820 in Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
17. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1992. Rate and application studies with AC 263,222 in peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:110.Google Scholar
19. Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Effect of adjuvants on weed control and soybean (Glycine max) tolerance with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 5:817822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Use of AC 263,222 for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:434438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar