Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:06:57.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate in Double-Crop No-Till Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean: Role of Preplant Applications and Residual Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark J. Vangessel ,
Albert O. Ayeni  and
Bradley A. Majek
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
University of Delaware Research and Education Center, Road 6, P.O. Box 48, Georgetown, DE 19947
Albert O. Ayeni*
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, 121 Northville Road, Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Bradley A. Majek
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, 121 Northville Road, Bridgeton, NJ 08302
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of preplant glyphosate applications and residual herbicides in the efficacy of glyphosate for weed management in double-crop no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean (GRS) was investigated in the coastal plains of Mid-Atlantic United States. The experiment had a two- by two- by five-factorial treatment structure laid out in three or four randomized complete blocks at research centers in Delaware and New Jersey. The factors investigated were preplant weed management: preplant or no preplant glyphosate applications; postemergence (POST) herbicide treatments: 0.8 kg ae/ha glyphosate alone or 0.8 kg/ha glyphosate tank-mixed with 0.6 kg ai/ha clomazone plus 0.07 kg ai/ha imazethapyr; and GRS growth stage at herbicide application which ranged from cracking, 5 to 8 d after planting, (DAP) to the V6 stage (35 DAP). Preplant glyphosate applications did not influence the efficacy of POST glyphosate applications alone or with the residual herbicides. Glyphosate alone or with clomazone plus imazethapyr provided excellent control of horseweed and fall panicum irrespective of the time of herbicide application from GRS at cracking to the V6 stage. With other weed species, residual herbicide influence varied with year, weed species, and GRS growth stage at herbicide application. Generally, glyphosate alone was most effective when applied at the V2 to V6 stages (16 to 35 DAP). A tank-mix of glyphosate with clomazone plus imazethapyr extended this window to include applications at GRS cracking and the V1 stage. Herbicide treatments were safe on GRS at all stages of application up to the V6 stage (35 DAP).

Keywords

Clomazone, glyphosate, imazethapyr, horseweed, Conyza (= Erigeron) canadensis L. # ERICAfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIPreplant glyphosate applicationscritical weed periodintegrated weed managementAmaranthus hybridusAmbrosia artemisiifoliaChenopodium albumIpomea hederaceaXanthium strumariumAMACHAMBELCHEALIPOHESETFAXANSTDAP, days after plantingGRS, glyphosate-resistant soybeanPOST, postemergenceRAREC, Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension CenterUD-REC, University of Delaware Research and Education Center
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 703 - 713
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

Anonymous. 1997. How a soybean plant develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service, Special Report No. 53. pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Lewis, W. M. 1985. Weed control in reduced-tillage soybean production. In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
Majek, B. A. 1998. Field crop, vegetable & fruit weed control: 1998 Results. Bridgeton, NJ: Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center. pp. 88–96.Google Scholar
Majek, B. A., Ayeni, A. O., and VanGessel, M. 1999. Timing and tank mixes for Roundup Ready soybeans. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. Abstr. 53:71.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Hagwood, E. S., Swann, C. W., Wilson, H. P., Curran, W. S., Majek, B. A., and VanGessel, M. J. 1999. Weed control in field crops. In Gould, A. B. and Hamilton, G. C., coordinators. Pesticides for New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Cooperative Extension E054N, Rutgers University. pp. W-156-W-163.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. and Wiese, A. F. 1985. Weed biology and its relationship to weed control in limited-tillage systems. In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 15–25.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M., Johnson, Q., Sankula, S., Isaacs, M., Kee, E., and Wootten, T. 1997. Delaware weed control results. Georgetown, DE: Cooperative Bulletin #69, University of Delaware's Research and Education Center. pp. 108–303.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum timing of glyphosate without or with residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean under full season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14: 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar