Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:48:46.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean Flower and Pod Response to Fomesafen, Acifluorfen, and Lactofen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2018

Shawn C. Beam ,
Michael L. Flessner  and
Kara B. Pittman
Shawn C. Beam
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Michael L. Flessner*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Kara B. Pittman
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Michael L. Flessner, Virginia Tech, 675 Old Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA 24061. (E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diphenyl ether herbicides are commonly applied POST in soybean to control weeds late in the growing season that have not been controlled by other previous weed management tactics. These “rescue” applications can occur during reproductive soybean growth. The effect of these herbicides on the developing flowers and pods is not known. Field research studies were conducted over 3 yr to determine how soybean flowers and developing pods respond to fomesafen, acifluorfen, and lactofen when applied at R1, R3, and R5 growth stages. Flower and pod counts in the nontreated check showed an increase (17.1, 5.8, and 2.21 at R1, R3, and R5 stage, respectively) and were statistically the same as the herbicide treatments 1 wk after treatment. Fomesafen, acifluorfen, and lactofen applied at 395, 420, and 219 g ai ha–1 at R1, R3, and R5 stage had no negative impact on soybean flowers and developing pods when compared to the nontreated check. No significant differences were observed in soybean yield between any treatments in all site-years of the study.

Keywords

Lawrence E. Steckel, University of TennesseeFomesafenacifluorfenlactofensoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Injuryyielddiphenyl ether herbicides.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 444 - 447
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Andrews, CJ, Skipsey, M, Townson, JK, Morris, C, Jepson, I, Edwards, R (1997) Glutathione transferase activities toward herbicides used selectively in soybean. Pest Sci 51:213–222 Google Scholar
Board, JE, Harville, BG (1998) Late-planted soybean yield response to reproductive source/sink stress. Crop Sci 38:763–711 Google Scholar
Chen, G, Wiatrak, P (2010) Soybean development and yield are influenced by planting date and environmental conditions in the southeastern coastal plain, United States. Agron J 102:1731–1737 Google Scholar
Evans, JDHL, Cavell, BD, Highnett, RR (1987) Fomesafen: metabolism as a basis for its selectivity in soya. Pages 345–352 in Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference–Weeds. Alton, England: BCPCGoogle Scholar
Falk, JS, Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2006) Protox-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) response to herbicides applied at different growth stages. Weed Sci 54:793–799 Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE, Burmood, DT, Pennington, JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci 11:929–931 Google Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper ND ed., Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Westminster, CO: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Bollero, GA, Stoller, EW (2003) Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:14–20 Google Scholar
Harris, JR, Gossett, BJ, Murphy, TR, Toler, JE (1991) Response to broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J Prod Agric 4:407–411 Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Gao, Z, Peterson, DE, Maddux, LD (1998) Hophornbeam copperleaf (Acalypha ostryfolia) biology and control. Weed Technol 12:515–521 Google Scholar
Johnson, WO, Kollman, GE, Swittenbank, C, Yih, RY (1978) Rh-6201 (Blazer): a new broad spectrum herbicide for postemergence use in soybeas. J Agric Food Chem 26:285–286 Google Scholar
Kapusta, G, Jackson, LA, Mason, DE (1986) Yield response of weed-free soybeans (Glycine max) to injury from postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Sci 34:304–307 10.1017/S0043174500066868Google Scholar
Lackey, JA (1977) A synopsis of Phaseoleae (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae). Ph.D. dissertation. Ames IA: Iowa State University. 298 pGoogle Scholar
Mangialardi, JP (2015) Postemergence control of Palmer amaranth with mesotrione-based herbicide mixtures and the impact of lactofen and planting date on the growth, development, and yield of indeterminate soybean. Master’s thesis. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University. 72 pGoogle Scholar
Nelson, KA, Renner, KA, Hammerschmidt, R (2002) Soybean: cultivar and herbicide selection affects soybean development and the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot. Agron J 94:1270–1281 Google Scholar
Nelson, KA, Rottinghaus, GE, Nelso, TE (2007) Effect of lactofen application timing on yield and isoflavone concentration in soybean seed. Agron J 99:645–649 Google Scholar
Orlowski, JM (2015) Evaluation of input-sensitive soybean management systems and the effect of lactofen application on soybean physiology. Ph.D. dissertation. Lexington KY: University of Kentucky. 131 pGoogle Scholar
Riley, EB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timing and glyphosate tank-mix combinations on the survival of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in soybean. Weed Technol 28:1–9 Google Scholar
Ringdahl, CA (2001) Nightshade (Solanum spp.) control in pinto bean with herbicides applied at reduced rates. Master’s thesis. Fargo, ND; North Dakota State University. 55pGoogle Scholar
Ruff, DF (1993) Physiological response, cultivar response, and potential residues of fomesafen in snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Ph.D. dissertation. Fayetteville AR: University of Arkansas. 138 pGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Bish, MD, Bradley, KW, Bond, JA (2018) A midsouthern consultant’s survey on weed management practices in soybean. Weed Technol 32:116–125 Google 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 31:148–154 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey–broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci 66:275–287 Google Scholar
Wichert, RA, Talbert, RE (1993) Soybean [Glycine max (L.)] response to lactofen. Weed Sci 41:23–27 10.1017/S0043174500057520Google Scholar
Williams, MM II, Nelson, RL (2014) Vegetable soybean tolerance to bentazon, fomesafen, imazamox, linuron, and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 28:601–607 Google Scholar
Young, BG, Young, JM, Matthews, JL, Owen, MDK, Zelaya, IA, Hartzler, RG, Wax, LM, Rorem, KW, Bollero, GA (2003) Soybean development and yield as affected by three postemergence herbicides. Agron J 95:1152–1156 Google Scholar