Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:38:47.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) Control in Double-Crop Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean with Glyphosate and Conventional Herbicide Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kevin W. Bradley ,
Edward S. Hagood Jr.  and
Paul H. Davis
Kevin W. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
Edward S. Hagood Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
Paul H. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted in Virginia to evaluate trumpetcreeper control with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems in double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean. When compared with the untreated control, none of the conventional herbicide systems evaluated in these trials provided any reductions in the trumpetcreeper stem density at 1 yr after treatment (YAT). Glyphosate systems generally provided much higher levels of trumpetcreeper stem reduction than conventional herbicide systems. By 1 YAT, densities of trumpetcreeper that received conventional herbicide treatments ranged from 97 to 141% of the initial population, whereas densities of trumpetcreeper that received preemergence (PRE) followed by postemergence (POST) or POST-only applications of the isopropylamine (IPA) or diammonium (DIA) salts of glyphosate ranged from 30 to 66% of the initial population. However, PRE applications of the IPA or DIA salts of glyphosate generally provided lower levels of trumpetcreeper stem reduction than PRE followed by POST or POST-only applications. These results indicate that glyphosate applications made later in the growing season will provide greater trumpetcreeper stem reductions than those made at or close to soybean planting in double-crop soybean production systems. Glyphosate systems did not provide higher soybean yields than the untreated control that contained trumpetcreeper only when densities averaged 6 trumpetcreeper stems/m2 in 2000, but 12 of the 16 glyphosate-containing treatments provided higher soybean yields than the untreated control that contained trumpetcreeper only when densities averaged 13 stems/m2 in 2001.

Keywords

Glyphosateimazamoxlactofenparaquattrumpetcreeper, Campsis radicans (L.) Seem. ex Bureau # CMIRAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 4902 RR’, ‘Asgrow 5401 RR’Acifluorfen, cloransulam, fomesafen, formulations, herbicide application timing, no-till, perennial weed controlDIA, diammoniumIPA, isopropylaminePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceYAT, years after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 298 - 303
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: 206A Waters Hall, Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1970. Common Weeds of the United States. Agricultural Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture. New York: Dover. Pp. 342–343.Google Scholar
Bertin, R. I. 1982a. Paternity and fruit production in trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Am. Nat. 119:694–709.Google Scholar
Bertin, R. I. 1982b. Floral biology, hummingbird pollination and fruit production of trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans, Bignoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 69:122–134.Google Scholar
Bloodworth, K. M., Reynolds, D. B., and Barber, L. T. 2002. Evaluation of glyphosate formulations for efficacy and crop tolerance in roundup ready corn and cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:1.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205–209.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D. and Reddy, K. N. 2000. Factors affecting Campsis radicans seed germination and seedling emergence. Weed Sci. 48:212–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., and Elmore, C. D. 2001. Characterization of leaf surface, wax composition, and control of redvine and trumpetcreeper with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 49:156–163.Google Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center. 2002. West Lafayette, IN. Web page: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/. Accessed: September 15, 2002.Google Scholar
Darwent, L. A., Kirkland, K. J., Baig, M. N., and Lefkovitch, L. P. 1994. Preharvest applications of glyphosate for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Technol. 8:477–482.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S. and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Redvine and trumpetcreeper control in soybeans and grain sorghum. Ark. Farm Res. 29:5.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1998. Roundup Ultra effects on perennial weeds. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:10.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. 1988. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 213–236.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1981. Potential changes in weed floras associated with reduced-cultivation systems for cereal production in temperate regions. Weed Res. 21:99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, L., Tessier, S., and Dyck, F. B. 1991. Tillage and rotation influences on weed community composition in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:783–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Re, D. B., Barry, G. F., Eichholtz, D. E., Delannay, X., Fuchs, R. L., Kishore, G. M., and Fraley, R. T. 1996. New weed control opportunities: development of soybeans with a roundup ready™ gene. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops: Agricultural Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC and Lewis. Pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Bailey, W. A., Armel, G. R., Whaley, C. M., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Responses of selected weeds and glyphosate-resistant cotton and soybean to two glyphosate salts. Weed Technol. 17:560–564.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Satchivi, N. M., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Briskin, D. P. 2000. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate isopropylamine and trimethylsulfonium salts in Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi . Weed Sci. 48:675–679.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7:286–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. 1985. Principles of weed control for reduced-tillage corn production. in Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 26–40.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn grown without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453–457.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Agricultural Chemical Usage, 1997 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economics Research Service. 100 p.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2001 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economics Research Service. 107 p.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 (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140–149.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:247–264.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–260.Google Scholar
Whaley, C. M. and VanGessel, M. J. 2002. Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) control with a field corn (Zea mays) weed management program. Weed Technol. 16:293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Fry, T. A., Durgan, B. R., and Wyse, D. L. 1997. Establishment of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in corn, soybean, and wheat. Weed Sci. 45:44–53.Google Scholar
Yonce, M. H. and Skroch, W. A. 1989. Control of selected perennial weeds with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 37:360–364.Google Scholar