Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:03:39.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimum Glyphosate Timing with or without Residual Herbicides in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max) under Full-Season Conventional Tillage

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 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

Field studies were conducted under full-season conventional tillage in Delaware and New Jersey to determine the critical time to apply glyphosate with or without residual herbicides for optimum weed control in glyphosate-resistant soybean (GRS). The residual herbicides tank-mixed with glyphosate (0.84 kg/ha) were clomazone (0.55 kg/ha) and imazethapyr (0.063 kg/ha). Herbicide application was made at cracking, unifoliate, and one- to six-trifoliate stages of GRS. Weeds varied in growth stages from preemergence (PRE) at cracking to an average height of 30 cm at the six-trifoliate stage of GRS. Herbicide activity varied by year and weed species. Herbicidal action was better under high (>125 mm/mo) than low (<100 mm/mo) rainfall regime. Glyphosate application without residual herbicides was less effective at cracking and unifoliate than at one- to three-trifoliate leaf stages. Mixing residual herbicides with glyphosate at cracking and unifoliate stages enhanced weed control but made no difference when application was delayed until one- to three-trifoliate stages. For optimum weed control in GRS, the window of application for glyphosate alone was between the one- and three-trifoliate leaf stages, approximately 18 to 28 days after planting (DAP). If glyphosate was tank-mixed with residual herbicides, the window of application extended from cracking until the four-trifoliate stage; and weed interference until the four-trifoliate stage (approximately 32 DAP) did not depress GRS yield.

Keywords

Clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinoneglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidCritical weed removal periodglyphosate ± residualsAmaranthus hybridusAmbrosia artemisiifoliaChenopodium albumIpomoea hederaceaPanicum dichotomiflorumAMACHAMBELCHEALIPOHEPANDIDAP, days after plantingGRS, glyphosate-resistant soybeanPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceRAREC, Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension CenterUD-REC, University of Delaware Research and Education Center
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 140 - 149
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am. pp. 149–152.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-tolerant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35: 1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1998. Wirestem muhly (Muhlenbergia frondosa) management in corn and glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:7.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pestic. Sci. 51: 235–243.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1999. Herbicide resistant weeds in the USA. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39:54.Google Scholar
Hofer, J. M., Peterson, D. E., Gordon, W. B., Staggenborg, S. A., and Fjell, D. L. 1998. Yield potential and response of glyphosate-resistant soybean varieties to imidazolinone herbicides. St. Paul, MN: Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:25.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J., Reese, P. F. Jr., Flint, J. L., et al. 1998. Early season weed control in Roundup Ready soybean: Effect on yield. St. Paul, MN: Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:130.Google Scholar
Kalaher, C. J., Hart, S. E., and Stoller, E. W. 1999. Influence of weed competition duration and row spacing on weed biomass production and crop yield in glyphosate-tolerant soybeans. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39: 8–9.Google Scholar
Levkulich, C. J. and Loux, M. M. 1999. The effect of row spacing, plant population, and time of weed removal on yield of glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39: 9–10.Google Scholar
Majek, B. A. 1996. Vegetable and Field & Forage Weed Control. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Bridgeton, Rutgers Cooperative Extension. pp. 72–77.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
Menbere, H. and Ritter, R. L. 1998. Postemergence control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers) in glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:7.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. A comparison of weed management strategies in wide and narrow row glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:6.Google Scholar
Oyarzabal, E. S., Mallarino, A. P., and Laskowski, J. A. 1999. Evaluating weed control systems on Roundup Ready soybeans using precision agriculture technologies. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39: 69–70.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
Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Armel, G. R., and Richardson, R. J. 1999. Efficacy of glyphosate tank mix programs in Roundup Ready soybean. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. Abstr. 53:24.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., Hagwood, E. S., Swann, C. W., Wilson, H. P., Curran, W. S., Majek, B. A., and VanGessel, M. 1999. Weed control in field crops. In Gould, A.B. and Hamilton, G.C., coordinators. 43 Pesticides for New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Cooperative Extension E045N. Rutgers University. pp. W-156-W-163.Google Scholar
Smith, M. C., Shaw, D. R., and Shankle, M. W. 1998. Optimization of glyphosate rate and application timing for weed control in Mississippi glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:38.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41: 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M., Johnson, Q., Sankura, S., Cooper, A., and Isaacs, M. 1998. Delaware Weed Control Results—1998. University of Delaware, College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension, Cooperative Bull. 74. 281 p.Google Scholar
Weber, M. L. and Kapusta, G. 1998. Weed control in glyphosate-resistant soybean. St. Paul, MN: Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:122.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. and Walker, R.H. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate and 2,4-DB for the control of selected morningglory (Ipomoea spp) species. Weed Technol. 11: 152–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar