Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:16:30.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate in Full-Season 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 efficacy of glyphosate applied alone or in combination with residual herbicides in full-season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean (GRS) was investigated in New Jersey and Delaware on sandy drought-prone soils. Treatments were in a two- by two- by five-factorial arrangement laid out in three or four randomized complete blocks. The factors investigated were—two preplant glyphosate applications: preplant glyphosate applications or no preplant glyphosate applications; two 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 herbicide application at five GRS growth stages: at cracking or one of the four times between the V1 and V7 stages. Preplant glyphosate application for the control of emerged weeds was essential for satisfactory control of common annual weeds with glyphosate alone or glyphosate combined with residual herbicides when rainfall was high (avg. 120 mm/mo), but less important when rainfall was low (avg. 72 mm/mo). Compared to glyphosate alone, glyphosate plus residual herbicides improved the control of common lambsquarters, fall panicum, and common ragweed, when applied at cracking or at the V1 stage and preceded by preplant glyphosate applications. At all stages of application, satisfactory full-season control of ivyleaf morningglory was achieved only with glyphosate plus residual herbicides. Horseweed, large crabgrass, giant foxtail, or smooth pigweed control varied from good to excellent (80 to 100%) at all stages of application of glyphosate alone or with residual herbicides. Glyphosate applied alone or with residual herbicides was safe on GRS regardless of time of application up to the V7 stage. The highest soybean yield was consistently achieved with preplant glyphosate applications followed by glyphosate alone at the V2 to V4 stages or a preplant glyphosate application followed by glyphosate plus residual herbicides applied from crop emergence to the V4 stage.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEhorseweed, Conyza (= Erigeron) canadensis L. # ERICAlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. # GLYMACritical weed removalintegrated weed managementpreplant glyphosate applicationsDAP, days after plantingDAT, days after treatmentGRS, 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. 714 - 724
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
Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 394–398.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11: 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., Beighley, D. H., et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-resistant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35: 1,461–1,467.Google Scholar
Devine, M., Salmon, R., Dupont, S., Shukla, A., Biesenthal, C., and Menendez, J. 1996. The Periodic Table of the Herbicides. Saskatoon, Canada: University of Saskatchewan. 1 p.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 354–360.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Al-Khatib, K., and Maddux, L. 1998. Glyphosate efficacy on ivyleaf morningglory in glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybean. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:5.Google Scholar
McKinley, T. L., Roberts, R. K., Hayes, R. M., and English, B. C. 1999. Economic comparison of herbicides for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 30–36.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-resistant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35: 1,451–1,461.Google Scholar
Ralston, J. L. and Witt, W. W. 1998. Comparison of postemergence broadleaf herbicides in glyphosate-tolerant and glyphosate-susceptible soybeans. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:7.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Hagood, 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
Shear, G. M. 1985. Introduction and history of limited tillage. In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 1–14.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
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). In Foy, C. L., ed. Volume 3. Reviews of Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 151–181.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14: 140–149.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. and Glasgow, J. L. 2001. Conyza canadensis insensitivity to glyphosate. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:32.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
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in nontransgenic and glyphoste-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelaya, I. A. and Owen, M.D.K. 2000. Differential response of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) to glyphosate in Iowa. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 40: 62–63.Google Scholar