Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-68png Total loading time: 3.037 Render date: 2021-04-13T08:46:49.738Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeremy T. Dirks
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
William J. Wiebold
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Raymond E. Massey
Affiliation:
Department of Ag Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate crop response, weed control, Glycine max yield, and economic returns with sulfentrazone alone and tank-mixed with glyphosate, cloransulam, or chlorimuron at two preplant application timings in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant G. max. No significant crop injury was observed. Setaria faberi and Polygonum pensylvanicum control 5 wk after planting (WAP) was generally greater with sulfentrazone applied early preplant (EPP) than with sulfentrazone applied at planting (AP). When applied AP, glyphosate plus sulfentrazone provided greater S. faberi control than sulfentrazone alone. Control of Amaranthus rudis, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Ipomoea hederacea was greater in 1998 than in 1999 because of more timely early-season precipitation. Sulfentrazone-based programs provided 80 to 100% control of A. rudis in 1998, but control in 1999 ranged from 72 to 95% at Columbia and 46 to 83% at Novelty. Cloransulam alone, at either application timing, was the only treatment that provided greater than 80% control of A. artemisiifolia at each site in each year. All sulfentrazone-based treatments provided greater than 80% control of I. hederacea in 1998, but control was less in 1999 and ranged from 54 to 91%. Xanthium strumarium control ranged from 5 to 94% with sulfentrazone alone; however, the addition of cloransulam or chlorimuron provided 75 to 99% control regardless of application timing. A blanket application of glyphosate was made 6 WAP over all preplant herbicide treatments, and weed control 5 wk after this treatment was greater than 79% with all sulfentrazone-based treatments. Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam or chlorimuron plus glyphosate EPP or AP followed by (fb) glyphosate postemergence (POST) generally provided the greatest weed control. Overall weed control was generally greater with the use of residual herbicides vs. glyphosate alone, although yield and net returns were not always greater. A greenhouse study was conducted to determine if altering the preplant application timing reduced sulfentrazone injury to G. max. Treatment variables included herbicide rate, temperature during a preplant incubation period, and application timing. Glycine max, Zea mays, and Sorghum bicolor were used as indicator species. Sulfentrazone caused less injury to G. max, Z. mays, and S. bicolor in soils incubated at 30 C when applied 20 d before planting compared to 0 d before planting. Equivalent amounts of crop injury were noted with sulfentrazone applied 20 or 0 d before planting in soils incubated at 5 C with all indicator species.

Type
Research Article
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.

References

Anonymous. 1998. Soybean Herbicide Variety Management Guide. Johnston, IA: Pioneer Hi-Bred International. 4 p.Google Scholar
Belcher, J. L., Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., and Wehtje, G. R. 1997. Response of yellow (Cyperus esculentus) and purple (Cyperus rotundus) nutsedge to sulfentrazone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:74.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Philbrook, B. D., and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Velvetleaf and giant foxtail control for solid-seeded soybean production in three tillage intensities. J. Prod. Agric. 3:302308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Tillage Information Center. 1998. Tillage Survey. National Crop Residue Management Survey Executive Summary. Lafayette, IN: CTIC. 22 p.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M. Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effects of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 44:797803.Google Scholar
Dayan, R. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634641.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. A. and Brenneman, L. G. 1997. Common waterhemp management in no-tillage soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:90.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 45:733738.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Massey, R. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Becker, C. D. 1997. Weed control and economic returns with postemergence herbicides in narrow-row soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 11:453459.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. 1979. Seedbed tillage and herbicide influence on soybean (Glycine max) weed control and yield. Weed Sci. 27:520526.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1997. Weed control in soybean with DE-565 alone and in combination with sulfentrazone. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:138.Google Scholar
Li, Z., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hancock, H. G. 1999. Use of seedling growth parameters to classify soybean (Glycine max) cultivar sensitivity to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 13:530535.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E. and Hoverstad, T. R. 1991. Imazethapyr for weed control in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:845851.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean. Weed Technol. 13:233238.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. G., ed. 1994. Combined analysis of several experiments. Pages 205260 In Agricultural Field Experiments, Design and Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Locke, M. A. 1998. Sulfentrazone sorption, desorption, and mineralization in soils from two tillage systems. Weed Sci. 46:494500.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Kapusta, G., and Roskamp, G. 1984. Early preplant applications for no-till soybean (Glycine max) weed control. Weed Sci. 32:293298.Google Scholar
Swantek, J. M., Sneller, C. H., and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci. 46:271277.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Missouri Farm Facts. Columbia, MO: Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service. 92 p.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Holman, C. S. 1998. Weed control programs in glyphosate tolerant soybean. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55:432433.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:382387.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Spratlin, C. E. 1995. Soil effects of sulfentrazone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:224.Google Scholar
Werling, B. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1988. Influence of application time on clomazone activity in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 36:629635.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 10 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *