Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:36:23.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of soybean and corn to halauxifen-methyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2020

Jessica Quinn ,
Nader Soltani Open the ORCID record for Nader Soltani [Opens in a new window] ,
Jamshid Ashigh ,
David C. Hooker ,
Darren E. Robinson  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Jessica Quinn
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Jamshid Ashigh
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Corteva Agriscience Inc., London, ON, Canada
David C. Hooker
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Nader Soltani, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown, ONN0P 2C0. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Preplant (PP) herbicide applications are an important tool within an integrated weed management system, specifically in no-till production. An understanding of crop tolerance regarding PP applications is important for effectively integrating a new herbicide into no-till cropping systems. Twelve field trials (six in corn and six in soybean) were conducted over a 2-yr period (2018 and 2019) near Exeter and Ridgetown, ON. The purpose of these studies was to evaluate the tolerance of soybean and corn to halauxifen-methyl applied PP, PRE, or POST at the registered rate (5 g a.i. ha−1) and twice the registered rate (10 g a.i. ha−1), hereafter referred to as the 1× and 2× rate, respectively. All trials were kept weed-free throughout the growing season to remove the confounding effect of weed interference. Halauxifen-methyl applied 14 d preplant (DPP), 7 DPP, 1 DPP, and 5 d after seeding (DAS) at the 1× and 2× rates caused ≤10% visible soybean injury. In contrast, halauxifen-methyl applied POST (cotyledon–unifoliate stage, VE-VC) caused 67% to 87% visible soybean injury, a 50% to 53% reduction in height, 65% to 81% decrease in population, 56% to 67% lower biomass, and 53% to 63% decline in yield. Halauxifen-methyl applied 10 DPP, 5 DPP, 1 DPP, 5 DAS, and POST (spike–one leaf stage, VE-V1) at the 1× and 2× rate caused ≤3% visible corn injury and caused no effect on corn height or biomass. Halauxifen-methyl applied at VE-V1 at the 2× rate reduced corn yield 10%. Based on these studies, the current application restriction of 7 DPP in soybean and 5 DPP in corn is conservative and could be expanded. Expanding the application window of halauxifen-methyl would increase the utility of this herbicide for producers.

Keywords

Halauxifen-methylcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrBiomasscrop injurydensityheightsensitivityweed controlyield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 613 - 618
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Anonymous (2016) DuPont Dicamba L Herbicide Label. Mississauga, ON: EI DuPont Canada CoGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) 2,4-D Ester 700 Label. Calgary, AB: Nufarm Agriculture IncGoogle Scholar
Askew, MC, Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Flessner, ML, Langston, DB Jr, Ferebee, IV JH (2019) Cotton tolerance to halauxifen-methyl applied preplant. Weed Technol 33(4):620–62610.1017/wet.2019.41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, CA, Lafond, GP, Moulin, AP, Townley-Smith, L, Zentner, RP (1997) Crop production and soil organic matter in long-term crop rotations in the sub-humid northern great plains of Canada. Pages 297–315in Paul, EA, Elliott, ET, Paustian, K, Cole, CV, eds, A Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems: Long-term Experiments in North America. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Cobb, AH, Reade, JP (2010) Auxin Type herbicides, Herbicides and Plant Physiology. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Pp. 136–15610.1002/9781444327793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, VL, Wolf, EA (1953) Effect of 2,4-D on four sweet corn hybrids at different stages of growth. Proc Florida State Hort Soc 66:141–147Google Scholar
Harrison, SK, Regnier, EE, Schmoll, JT, Webb, JE (2001) Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn. Weed Sci 29(2):224–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K (2000) Mode of action of auxinic herbicides: a new ending to a long, drawn out story. Trends Plant Sci 5:506–50810.1016/S1360-1385(00)01791-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Reichers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other post-emergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–11210.1614/WS-04-078RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, RF, Kapusta, G, Matthews, JL (1993) Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to 2,4-D ester applied preplant. Weed Technol 7:906–91010.1017/S0890037X00037970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mostaghimi, S, Younos, TM, Tim, US (1992) Crop residue effects on nitrogen yield in water and sediment runoff from two tillage systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 39:187–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OMAFRA (2017) Guide to weed control. Publication 75. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Toronto, ON. 458 pGoogle Scholar
Slife, FW (1956) The effect of 2,4-D and several other herbicides on weeds and soybeans when applied as post-emergence sprays. Weeds 4:61–6810.2307/4040010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smika, DE, Unger, PW (1986) Effects of surface residues on soil water storage. Adv Soil Sci 5:111–13810.1007/978-1-4613-8660-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2016) Potential corn yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 30:979–98410.1614/WT-D-16-00046.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2017) Perspectives on potential soybean yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 31:148–15410.1017/wet.2016.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2018) Tank mixture of glyphosate with 2,4-D accentuates 2,4-D injury in glyphosate-resistant corn. Can J Plant Sci 98:889–89610.1139/cjps-2017-0241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=3210035901. Accessed: August 20, 2018Google Scholar
Stougaard, RN, Kapusta, G, Roskamp, G (1984) Early preplant herbicide applications for no-till soybean (Glycine max) weed control. Weed Sci 32:293–29810.1017/S0043174500059014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, MA, Steckel, LE, Ellis, AT, Mueller, TC (2007) Soybean tolerance to early preplant applications of 2,4-D ester, 2,4-D amine, and dicamba. Weed Technol 21:882–88510.1614/WT-06-188.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vissoh, PV, Gbehounou, G, Ahanchede, A, Kuyper, TW, Roling, NG (2004) Weeds as agricultural constraint to farmers in Benin: results of a diagnostic study. NJAS–Wageningen J Life Sci 52:308–32910.1016/S1573-5214(04)80019-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018) Herbicide programs utilizing halauxifen-methyl for glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in soybean. Weed Technol 32:659–66410.1017/wet.2018.60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2019) Halauxifen-methyl preplant intervals and environmental conditions in soybean. Weed Technol 33:680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar