Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] that lack resistance to auxin herbicides [i.e., not genetically modified for resistance] have well-documented responses to those particular herbicides, with yield loss being probable. When a soybean field is injured by auxin herbicides, regulatory authorities often collect a plant sample from that field. This research attempted to simulate soybean exposures due to accidental mixing of incorrect herbicides, tank contamination, or particle drift. This research examined whether analytical testing of herbicide residues on soybean to aminocyclopyrachlor (ACP), aminopyralid, 2,4-D, or dicamba would be related to the visual observations and yield responses from these herbicides. ACP and aminopyralid were applied to R1 soybean at 0.1, 1, and 10 g ae ha−1; 2,4-D and dicamba were applied at 1, 10, and 100 g ae ha−1. Visual evaluations and plant sample collections were undertaken at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT), and yield was measured. The conservative limits of detection for the four herbicides in this project were 5, 10, 5, and 5 ng g−1 fresh weight of soybean for ACP, aminopyralid, 2,4-D, and dicamba, respectively. Many of the plant samples were non-detects, especially at lower application dosages. All herbicide concentrations rapidly declined soon after application, and many reached nondetectable limits by 14 DAT. All herbicide treatments caused soybean injury, although the response to 2,4-D was markedly lower than the responses to the other three herbicides. There was no apparent correlation between herbicide concentrations (which were declining over time) and the observed soybean injury (which was increasing over time or staying the same). This research indicated that plant samples should be collected as soon as possible after soybean exposure to auxin herbicides.

The introduction of 2,4-D–resistant soybean and cotton provided growers a new POST active ingredient to include in weed management programs. The technology raises concerns regarding potential 2,4-D off-target movement to sensitive vegetation, and spray droplet size is the primary management factor focused on to reduce spray particle drift. The objective of this study was to investigate the droplet size distribution, droplet velocity, and particle drift potential of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline pre-mixture (Enlist Duo®) applications with two commonly used venturi nozzles in a low-speed wind tunnel. Applications with the TDXL11004 nozzle had larger DV0.1 (291 µm), DV0.5 (544 µm), and DV0.9 (825 µm) values compared with the AIXR11004 nozzle (250, 464, and 709 µm, respectively), and slower average droplet velocity (8.1 m s−1) compared with the AIXR11004 nozzle (9.1 m s−1). Nozzle type had no influence on drift deposition (P = 0.65), drift coverage (P = 0.84), and soybean biomass reduction (P = 0.76). Although the TDXL11004 nozzle had larger spray droplet size, the slower spray droplet velocity could have influenced the nozzle particle drift potential. As a result, both TDXL11004 and AIXR11004 nozzles had similar spray drift potential. Further studies are necessary to understand the impact of droplet velocity on drift potential at field scale and test how different tank solutions, sprayer configurations, and environmental conditions could influence the droplet size and velocity dynamics and consequent drift potential in pesticide applications.

Field experiments were conducted in 2012 and 2013 across four locations for a total of 6 site-years in the midsouthern United States to determine the effect of growth stage at exposure on soybean sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba (8.8 g ae ha−1) and 2,4-D (140 g ae ha−1). Regression analysis revealed that soybean was most susceptible to injury from 2,4-D when exposed between 413 and 1,391 accumulated growing degree days (GDD) from planting, approximately between V1 and R2 growth stages. In terms of terminal plant height, soybean was most susceptible to 2,4-D between 448 and 1,719 GDD, or from V1 to R4. However, maximum susceptibility to 2,4-D was only between 624 and 1,001 GDD or from V3 to V5 for yield loss. As expected, soybean was sensitive to dicamba for longer spans of time, ranging from 0 to 1,162 GDD for visible injury or from emergence to R2. Likewise, soybean height was most affected when dicamba exposure occurred between 847 and 1,276 GDD or from V4 to R2. Regarding grain yield, soybean was most susceptible to dicamba between 820 and 1,339 GDD or from V4 to R2. Consequently, these data indicate that soybean response to 2,4-D and dicamba can be variable within vegetative or reproductive growth stages; therefore, specific growth stage at the time of exposure should be considered when evaluating injury from off-target movement. In addition, application of dicamba near susceptible soybean within the V4 to R2 growth stages should be avoided because this is the time of maximum susceptibility. Research regarding soybean sensitivity to 2,4-D and dicamba should focus on multiple exposure times and also avoid generalizing growth stages to vegetative or reproductive.

Field studies were conducted during 1983 and 1984 to determine the single and interactive effects of trifluralin, soybean thrips, and the sodium salt of acifluorfen on soybean. Increased soybean injury was observed in 1983 when acifluorfen at 0.6 kg ai/ha was applied to soybeans infested with soybean thrips versus plants where soybean thrips were controlled. Soybean injury measured by percent defoliation and visual injury ratings was reduced when thrips were controlled versus soybeans where thrips were not controlled with carbaryl at 0.9 kg ai/ha in 1983. Soybean thrips alone did not reduce soybean seed yield in this study. Acifluorfen reduced soybean photosynthetic rate, shoot weight, root weight, and seed yield. Trifluralin had no effect on soybean growth parameters measured in this study.

Cultivation timings and postemergence applications of AC 263,222 were evaluated for sicklepod and pitted morningglory control in soybean. Cultivation alone controlled each less than 35% season-long. A cultivation made 7 d after POST applications of AC 263,222 more consistently improved sicklepod and pitted morningglory control than a cultivation made 3 d before, immediately after, or 3 d after the POST application. Imazaquin PRE followed by 18 g ai/ha AC 263,222 controlled sicklepod 88% or more and pitted morningglory 83% or more two of three years. A cultivation made immediately after AC 263,222 POST resulted in reduced soybean yields in several instances compared to the same treatment without cultivation. A cultivation made 7 d after application of AC 263,222 increased soybean yields the most in several instances compared to all other timings.

Field trials were conducted at two sites in 1996 and 1997 to evaluate weed control and crop response to herbicide programs in no-till soybean that include flumioxazin or sulfentrazone alone and each herbicide tank-mixed with either chlorimuron or imazaquin. A prepackaged mixture of metribuzin plus chlorimuron also was included for comparison. Cool, wet conditions after herbicide application in both years were conducive to soybean injury up to 21% at 3 wk after planting (WAP). Flumioxazin and sulfentrazone alone provided ≥ 89% control of velvetleaf, Pennsylvania smartweed, and common cocklebur. Sulfentrazone alone provided greater control of common waterhemp, common cocklebur, and ivyleaf and pitted morningglories than flumioxazin. Flumioxazin provided greater control of common ragweed than sulfentrazone. The addition of chlorimuron to flumioxazin or sulfentrazone provided greater control of velvetleaf than flumioxazin or sulfentrazone alone. The addition of imazaquin or chlorimuron to flumioxazin provided greater control of common cocklebur than flumioxazin alone. The addition of imazaquin or chlorimuron to sulfentrazone provided greater control of common ragweed than sulfentrazone alone. The addition of chlorimuron or imazaquin to sulfentrazone or flumioxazin provided little or no additional control of pitted morningglory, common waterhemp, or Pennsylvania smartweed. Metribuzin plus chlorimuron provided control of velvetleaf, Pennsylvania smartweed, common ragweed, and common cocklebur that was equal to or better than the control provided by sulfentrazone or flumioxazin plus chlorimuron or imazaquin.

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the interactions of tillage systems with imazaquin and imazethapyr on weed control and soybean injury and yield. Control of jimsonweed, common cocklebur, ivyleaf morningglory, velvetleaf, and giant foxtail from imazaquin and imazethapyr in conventional tillage was generally equal to or greater than control in no-tillage. However, under limited rainfall, weed control in no-tillage was generally equal to or greater than control in conventional tillage. Reductions in soybean heights due to herbicide treatment were evident in both tillage systems in 1985 and 1986 but not in. Soybean yields were reduced in 1985 from imazaquin at 140, 210, and 250 g/ha and imazethapyr at 105 and 140 g/ha. Yields were not reduced in 1986 and. Imazaquin and imazethapyr appear to provide adequate control of jimsonweed, common cocklebur, ivyleaf morningglory, velvetleaf, and giant foxtail in conventional and no-till systems.

Field studies were conducted in 1991 and 1992 to evaluate the duration of giant foxtail control in no-till soybean with MON 13200 alone and with imazaquin applied up to 2 mo prior to planting. MON 13200 at rates ranging from 224 to 448 g ai/ha applied up to 57 d before planting controlled 97 to 99% of giant foxtail averaged over years. MON 13200 plus imazaquin applied approximately 45 or 30 d before planting controlled 92 to 99% of giant foxtail compared with 53, 64, and 65% and 61, 69, and 78% in plots treated with alachlor, metolachlor, or pendimethalin plus imazaquin, respectively. Differences in control of giant foxtail among the herbicides evaluated were minimal when applied 15 or 0 d before planting. Little or no soybean injury was observed in 1991; up to 30% was observed in 1992 but final soybean height was not affected.

Field trials were conducted at two sites in both 1997 and 1998 to evaluate soybean response and weed control with glufosinate alone or combined with quizalofop, lactofen, imazethapyr, flumiclorac, or bentazon plus acifluorfen in narrow-row, glufosinate-resistant soybean. Soybean injury ranged from 0 to 21% at 2 wk after treatment (WAT) and from 0 to 5% by 4 WAT. Glufosinate alone at 0.29 and 0.4 kg ai/ha controlled velvetleaf, common waterhemp, common ragweed, morningglory species, and giant foxtail greater than 85% in all studies. Mixtures containing glufosinate and other herbicides controlled these species greater than 81% but did not improve control over glufosinate alone. Estimates of weed biomass closely reflected visual control evaluations. However, giant foxtail biomass was higher for mixtures of glufosinate plus lactofen, flumiclorac, or bentazon and acifluorfen, indicating possible antagonism of glufosinate activity. At both locations, soybean yields were similar among most treatments, but that of the glufosinate plus lactofen treatment was lower when compared with other treatments. Additional trials evaluated soybean response and weed control with a preemergence herbicide followed by glufosinate postemergence (POST), glufosinate applied once or twice POST, and mixtures of glufosinate plus imazethapyr or flumiclorac POST in wide-row soybean. Glufosinate applied twice controlled common waterhemp, morningglory species, prickly sida, common cocklebur, and giant foxtail up to 39% greater than did glufosinate applied once. The addition of imazethapyr, but not flumiclorac, to glufosinate improved weed control when compared with glufosinate alone.

Field studies were conducted to determine the sensitivity of conventional ‘Motte’ and ‘Pioneer 9831’ soybean to simulated glyphosate drift rates applied during vegetative and reproductive development and the effect of glyphosate on progeny. Glyphosate at 8, 84, and 420 g ae/ha was applied to soybean at the V3, V6, R2, and R5 growth stages. Glyphosate at 8 and 84 g/ha did not reduce soybean plant population, growth, or yield or cause deleterious effects on progeny, regardless of the growth stage at application. Soybean population, growth, and yield were reduced as much as 99 to 100% after application of 420 g/ha glyphosate at the V3 growth stage. Glyphosate at 420 g/ha applied at V6 was less detrimental to soybean compared with the V3 timing. Delaying the application of 420 g/ha glyphosate until R2 and R5 reduced soybean yields 22 to 49% and 43 to 44%, respectively. Soybean injury from 420 g/ha glyphosate was generally transient or less severe when applied at the V6 growth stage or later. However, 420 g/ha glyphosate at R5 (initial podfill) caused a 390 to 450 kg/ha yield reduction compared with the V6 application, which indicated greater soybean vulnerability to glyphosate drift during podfill than in the late-stage vegetative development. Although glyphosate at 420 g/ha was injurious to soybean, regardless of application timing, progeny was not affected.

New trait technology incorporating 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) resistance in soybean provides an alternative method to control weeds. However, the effect of postemergence treatments of 2,4-D on aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12) soybean on injury and yield components has not been reported. Our objectives were to characterize the effect of 2,4-D (dimethylamine salt) rates (0, 1,120, and 2,240 g ae ha−1) and soybean growth stage (V5, R2, or V5 followed by R2) on AAD-12 soybean injury and yield components. Less than 3% soybean injury was observed when 2,240 g ha−1 of 2,4-D was applied to R2 soybean, and less than 1% soybean injury was caused by 1,120 g ha−1 of 2,4-D. Seed yield, seed mass, pod number, seed number, seed per pod, reproductive node number, pods per reproductive node, node number, and percent reproductive nodes were not affected by 2,4-D treatments when applied at the V5, R2, or the V5 followed by R2 soybean growth stage. This research demonstrates that soybean transformed with AAD-12 can tolerate foliar applications of 2,4-D at rates up to 2,240 g ha−1 with no effect on soybean grain yield components.

Soybean plants exposed POST to 2,4-D can have reduced seed yield depending on the dose and time of exposure, but it is unclear how 2,4-D affects specific yield components. Objectives were to quantify soybean injury, characterize changes in seed yield and yield components of soybean plants exposed to 2,4-D, and determine if seed-yield loss can be estimated from visual assessment of crop injury. Ten rates (0, 0.1, 1.1, 11.2, 35, 70, 140, 280, 560, and 2,240 g ae ha−1) of 2,4-D were applied to Becks brand 342 NRR soybean at three soybean growth stages (V2, V5, or R2). The soybeans were planted near Lafayette, IN and Urbana, IL in 2009 and 2010 and near Fowler, IN in 2009. Twenty percent visual soybean injury was caused by 29 to 109 g ha−1 2,4-D at 14 d after treatment (DAT) and 109 to 245 g ha−1 at 28 DAT. Nonlinear regression models were fit to describe the effect of 2,4-D on seed yield and yield components of soybean. Seed yield was reduced by 5% from 87 to 116 g ha−1 and a 10% reduction was caused by 149 to 202 g ha−1 2,4-D at all application timings. The number of seeds m−2, pods m−2, reproductive nodes m−2, and nodes m−2 were the most sensitive yield components. Path analysis indicated that seeds m−2, pods m−2, main stem reproductive nodes m−2, and main stem nodes m−2 were the most influential yield components in seed-yield formation. Seed-yield loss was significant (P < 0.0001) and highly correlated (R2 = 0.95 to 0.99) to visual soybean injury ratings. A 10% seed-yield loss was caused by 35% soybean injury observed at 14 DAT, whereas a 10% seed-yield loss was a result of 40, 19, and 15% soybean injury observed at 28 DAT when soybean was exposed to 2,4-D at the V2, V5, and R2 growth stages, respectively.

Preplant applications of two 2,4-D formulations and dicamba were evaluated for injury to no-till soybean. Herbicides applied 28 or 21 d before planting (DBP) at 0.56 kg ae/ha for the 2,4-D formulations and 0.28 kg ae/ha for dicamba did not injure soybean. At 14 DBP soybean injury was lower (< 6%) with applications of 2,4-D than with dicamba (13% to 17%). Injury increased when herbicides were applied at 7 DBP with soybean injury from both 2,4-D (< 11%) and dicamba (< 38%). When the herbicides were applied at planting soybean injury was < 18% with the 2,4-D formulations and < 73% with dicamba. Soybean yields were unaffected by the injury from herbicides applied 21, 14, and 7 DBP. However, soybean yield was decreased to 870 kg/ha in 2005 when dicamba was applied at planting compared to the nontreated check (1,950 kg/ha)

Field studies were conducted over 2 yr to evaluate weed control, yield, and net returns of glyphosate-resistant soybean using total postemergence (5 wk) (POST) herbicide systems with glyphosate–isopropylamine (Ipa) or glyphosate–trimethylsulfonium (Tms) alone, tank mixed with fomesafen, or in sequential treatments with bentazon, fomesafen, Ipa, or Tms. Soybean early-season injury ranged from 0 to 28% across the test. Although Ipa did not injure soybean, glyphosate–Tms early postemergence (3 wk) (EPOST) injured soybean from 7 to 17% depending on the rate. Glyphosate–Tms mixed with fomesafen EPOST injured soybean from 20 to 28%. Red morningglory control by Ipa and Tms at 0.8 kg ae/ha was no more than 88%. Sequential applications of Tms or Ipa controlled red morningglory 78% or less. Fomesafen improved red morningglory control by Ipa and Tms. Bentazon did not affect the control of red morningglory by these herbicides. Sicklepod, smooth pigweed, and large crabgrass control was 81, 93, and 79%, respectively, or greater for all herbicide treatments. By midseason, narrow-row soybeans had canopied, and competition from weeds was minimal. Overall, the net returns were reflective of soybean yield, and maximum net returns were recorded for treatments with reduced herbicide inputs. Conversely, sequential application of herbicides as EPOST followed by POST treatments resulted in lower net returns because of increased herbicide and application costs.