Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-68cz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T05:05:07.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of reduced rates of tiafenacil at vegetative growth stages on soybean growth and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2024

Donnie K. Miller Open the ORCID record for Donnie K. Miller [Opens in a new window] ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Thomas R. Butts ,
Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Daniel O. Stephenson IV  and
Koffi Badou-Jeremie Kouame
Donnie K. Miller*
Affiliation:
Professor, Northeast Research Station, LSU AgCenter, St Joseph, LA, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Research and Extension Professor, Delta Research and Extension Center, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS, USA
Thomas R. Butts
Affiliation:
Clinical Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Professor and Row Crop Weed Specialist, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture West Tennessee Research and Education Center and Department of Plant Sciences, Jackson, TN, USA
Daniel O. Stephenson IV
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, LSU AgCenter, Alexandria, LA, USA
Koffi Badou-Jeremie Kouame
Affiliation:
Weed Scientist, Agricultural Research Center, Kansas State University, Hayes, KS, USA
*
Corresponding author: Donnie K. Miller; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tiafenacil is a new non-selective protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicide with both grass and broadleaf activity labeled for preplant application to corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Early-season soybean emergence and growth often coincide in the U.S. Midsouth with preplant herbicide application in later-planted cotton and soybean, thereby increasing opportunity for off-target herbicide movement from adjacent fields. Field studies were conducted in 2022 to identify any deleterious impacts of reduced rates of tiafenacil (12.5% to 0.4% of the lowest labeled application rate of 24.64 g ai ha−1) applied to 1- to 2-leaf soybean. Visual injury at 1 wk after treatment (WAT) with 1/8×, 1/16×, 1/32×, and 1/64× rate of tiafenacil was 80%, 61%, 39%, and 21%, while at 4 WAT, these respective rates resulted in visual injury of 67%, 33%, 14%, and 4%. Tiafenacil at these respective rates reduced soybean height 55% to 2% and 53% to 5% at 1 and 4 WAT and soybean yield 53%, 24%, 5%, and 1%. Application of tiafenacil directly adjacent to soybean in early vegetative growth should be avoided, as severe visual injury will occur. In cases where off-target movement does occur, impacted soybean should not be expected to fully recover, and negative impact on growth and yield will be observed.

Keywords

Herbicide injuryoff-target movement
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5 , September 2024 , pp. 599 - 603
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Vipan Kumar, Cornell University

References

Adams, L, Barber, T, Doherty, R, Raper, T, Miller, D, Peralisi, B (2022) Use of Reviton as a cotton harvest aid. Proc Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:121 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2023a) Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Management Guide. ∼https://www.lsuagcenter.com/∼/media/system/d/9/c/6/d9c65025862a52032feaf01c7f510f5a/p1565_la_suggestedchemicalweedguide_revlb0123pdf.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Anonymous (2023b) Reviton® herbicide label. Helm Agro US, Inc., Tampa, FL. 14 p. https://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldH62016.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Anonymous (2024a) 2024 Weed Control Manual for Tennessee. https://utbeef.tennessee.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2022/02/PB1580_2022_DCFLS.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Anonymous (2024b) MP44 Arkansas 2024 Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/mp44/mp44.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Anonymous (2024c) Weed Management Suggestions for Mississippi Row Crops. https://www.mississippi-crops.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2024-MS-Weed-MGT-1.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Butts, TR, Barber, LT, Norsworthy, JK, Davis, J (2021) Survey of ground and aerial herbicide application practices in Arkansas agronomic crops. Weed Technol 35:1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Fritz, BK, Kouame, KB-J, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, LT, Ross, WJ, Lorenz, GM, Thrash, BC, Bateman, NR, Adamczyk, JJ (2022) Herbicide spray drift from ground and aerial applications: Implications for potential pollinator foraging sources. Sci Rep 12:18017 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Creech, E (2022) Save Money on Fuel with No-Till Farming. USDA Farmers.gov. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.farmers.gov/blog/save-money-on-fuel-with-no-till-farming#:∼:text=By%20transitioning%20from%20continuous%20conventional,per%20acre%20on%20fuel%20annually. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL (2002) Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:580–586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmaha, BS, Sekaran, U, Franzluebbers, AJ (2021) Cover cropping and conservation tillage improve soil health in the southeastern US. Agron J 114:296–316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flessner, ML, Pittman, KB (2019) Horseweed control with preplant herbicides after mechanical injury from small grain harvest. Agron J 111:3274–3280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, CM, Pittman, MM (2023) Glyphosate-resistant downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control using alternative herbicides applied postemergence. Weed Technol 37:205–211 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, JR, Gossett, BJ, Murphy, TR, Toler, JE (1991) Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J Prod Agric 4:407–411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanning, NR, Young, JM, Young, BG (2016) Efficacy of preplant corn and soybean herbicides on star-of-Bethlehem (Ornithogalum umbellatum) in no-till crop production. Weed Technol 30:391–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewar, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, R (2015) Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 7:5875–5895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, DK, Stephenson, DO IV, Barber, T, Doherty, RC, Mize, RC (2021) Evaluation of Reviton for soybean desiccation. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 73:121 Google Scholar
Mookodi, KL, Spackman, JA, Adjesiwor, AT (2023) Urea ammonium nitrate as the carrier for preplant burndown herbicides. Agrosyst Geosci Environ 6:e20404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J, Ahn, YO, Nam, JW, Hang, MG, Song, N, Kim, T, Sung, SK (2018) Biochemical and physiological mode of action of tiafenacil, a new protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase-inhibiting herbicide. Pestic Biochem Physiol 152:38–44 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2024) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Kniss, AR, Streibig, JC (2015) Research methods in weed science: statistics. Weed Sci 63:166–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Champaign, IL: WSSA. 500 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2023) Prospective Plantings. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/x633f100h/rv044597v/gx41nz573/pspl0323.pdf. Accessed: March 19, 2024Google Scholar
Virk, SS, Prostko, EP (2022) Survey of pesticide application practices and technologies in Georgia agronomic crops. Weed Technol 36:616–628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vollmer, KM, Van Gessel, MJ, Johnson, QR, Scott, BA (2019) Preplant and residual herbicide application timings for weed control in no-till soybean. Weed Technol 33:166–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerveld, DB, Soltari, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2021a) Biologically effective dose of pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D applied preplant alone or mixed with metribuzin on glyphosate-resistant horseweed in soybean. Weed Technol 35:824–829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerveld, DB, Soltari, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH (2021b) Efficacy of tiafenacil applied preplant alone or mixed with metribuzin for glyphosate-resistant horseweed control. Weed Technol 35:817–823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018) Weed Control with halauxin-methyl applied alone and in mixtures with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate. Weed Technol 32:597–602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar