Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:46:29.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vegetable Soybean Tolerance to Pyroxasulfone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
Nicholas E. Hausman  and
James L. Moody
Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
Ecologist, Agricultural Science Technician, and Biological Science Technician, United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
Nicholas E. Hausman
Affiliation:
Ecologist, Agricultural Science Technician, and Biological Science Technician, United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
James L. Moody
Affiliation:
Ecologist, Agricultural Science Technician, and Biological Science Technician, United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If registered for use on vegetable soybean, pyroxasulfone would expand the options for weed management systems in the crop. In order to determine the potential crop injury risk of pyroxasulfone on vegetable soybean, the objective of this work was to quantify vegetable soybean tolerance to pyroxasulfone applied PRE and EPOST. Twenty-one vegetable soybean and two grain-type soybean cultivars were treated with pyroxasulfone at 417 gaiha−1 (twice the recommended field use rate) PRE, EPOST, or not treated. Plant population density was unaffected by pyroxasulfone. Only low levels (<10%) of crop injury were observed within a few weeks after PRE and EPOST treatments. Soybean cultivars were not differentially affected by pyroxasulfone, as evidenced by the lack of interactions between cultivar and treatment for any crop response variable. The low amount of risk of crop injury associated with pyroxasulfone is no different for vegetable soybean cultivars grown in the US for commercial production than grain-type soybean.

Keywords

Bentazonfomesafenimazamoxlinuronpyroxasulfonesulfentrazonesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Crop injuryedamameherbicide toleranceminor crop.
Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 416 - 420
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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 for this paper: Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2010) Dual Magnum® herbicide product label 321735. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta. 53 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2012) Supplemental label, Lorox® DF herbicide. Phoenix, AZ: Tessenderlo Kerley. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2013a) Special local need label, Pursuit® herbicide. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2013b) Special local need label, Spartan Charge® herbicide. Philadelphia, PA: FMC. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2013c) Supplemental label, Raptor® herbicide. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014a) Supplemental label, Reflex® herbicide. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014b) Treflan® HFP herbicide product label D02-047-027. Indianapolis, IN: Dow. 35 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015a) Basagran® herbicide product label 103569-082614A. Cary, NC: Arysta. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015b) Zidua® herbicide product label NVA 2015-04-388-0072. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 17 pGoogle Scholar
Belfry, KD, McNaughton, KE, Sikkema, PH (2015) Weed control in soybean using pyroxasulfone and sulfentrazone. Can J Plant Sci 95:1199–1204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belfry, KD, Soltani, N, Brown, LR, Sikkema, PH (2015) Tolerance of identity preserved soybean cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Can J Plant Sci 95:719–726 Google Scholar
Burris, JS, Edje, OT, Wahab, AH (1973) Effects of seed size on seedling performance in soybeans: II. Seedling growth and photosynthesis and field performance. Crop Sci 13:207–210 Google Scholar
Hausman, NE, Tranel, PJ, Riechers, DE, Maxwell, DJ, Gonzini, LC, Hager, AG (2013) Responses of an HPPD inhibitor–resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population to soil-residual herbicides. Weed Technol 27:704–711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, KE, Shropshire, C, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2014) Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to timing applications of pyroxasulfone, flumioxazin, and pyroxasulfone+flumioxazin. Weed Technol 28:494–500 Google Scholar
Neter, J, Kutner, MH, Nachtsheim, CJ, Wasserman, W (1996) Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th edn. Chicago: Irwin. 1408 pGoogle Scholar
Place, GT, Reberg-Horton, SC, Carter, TE Jr, Smith, AN (2011) Effects of soybean seed size on weed competition. Agron J 103:175–181 Google Scholar
Tanetani, Y, Fujioka, T, Kaku, K, Shimizu, T (2011) Studies on the inhibition of plant very-long-chain fatty acid elongase by a novel herbicide, pyroxasulfone. J Pestic Sci 36:221–228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM 2nd (2015a) Managing weeds in commercial edamame production: current options and implications. Weed Sci 63:954–961 Google Scholar
Williams, MM 2nd (2015b) Phenomorphological characterization of vegetable soybean germplasm lines for commercial production. Crop Sci 55:1274–1279 Google Scholar
Williams, MM 2nd, Nelson, RL (2014) Vegetable soybean tolerance to bentazon, fomesafen, imazamox, linuron, and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 28:601–607 Google Scholar
Yamaji, Y, Honda, H, Kobayashi, M, Hanai, R, Inoue, J (2014) Weed control efficacy of a novel herbicide, pyroxasulfone. J Pestic Sci 39:165–169 Google Scholar
Zhang, QY, Hashemi, M, Hebert, SJ, Li, YS (2013) Different responses of preemergence and early seedling growth to planting depth between vegetable soybean and grain soybeans. Legume Res 36:515–521 Google Scholar