Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Soybean Flower and Pod Response to Fomesafen, Acifluorfen, and Lactofen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2018


Shawn C. Beam
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Michael L. Flessner
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Kara B. Pittman
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Diphenyl ether herbicides are commonly applied POST in soybean to control weeds late in the growing season that have not been controlled by other previous weed management tactics. These “rescue” applications can occur during reproductive soybean growth. The effect of these herbicides on the developing flowers and pods is not known. Field research studies were conducted over 3 yr to determine how soybean flowers and developing pods respond to fomesafen, acifluorfen, and lactofen when applied at R1, R3, and R5 growth stages. Flower and pod counts in the nontreated check showed an increase (17.1, 5.8, and 2.21 at R1, R3, and R5 stage, respectively) and were statistically the same as the herbicide treatments 1 wk after treatment. Fomesafen, acifluorfen, and lactofen applied at 395, 420, and 219 g ai ha–1 at R1, R3, and R5 stage had no negative impact on soybean flowers and developing pods when compared to the nontreated check. No significant differences were observed in soybean yield between any treatments in all site-years of the study.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Andrews, CJ, Skipsey, M, Townson, JK, Morris, C, Jepson, I, Edwards, R (1997) Glutathione transferase activities toward herbicides used selectively in soybean. Pest Sci 51:213222 3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board, JE, Harville, BG (1998) Late-planted soybean yield response to reproductive source/sink stress. Crop Sci 38:763–711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G, Wiatrak, P (2010) Soybean development and yield are influenced by planting date and environmental conditions in the southeastern coastal plain, United States. Agron J 102:17311737 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, JDHL, Cavell, BD, Highnett, RR (1987) Fomesafen: metabolism as a basis for its selectivity in soya. Pages 345–352 in Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference–Weeds. Alton, England: BCPCGoogle Scholar
Falk, JS, Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2006) Protox-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) response to herbicides applied at different growth stages. Weed Sci 54:793799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE, Burmood, DT, Pennington, JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci 11:929931 Google Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 2946 in Camper ND ed., Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Westminster, CO: Southern Weed Science Society Google 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 17:1420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, JR, Gossett, BJ, Murphy, TR, Toler, JE (1991) Response to broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J Prod Agric 4:407411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Gao, Z, Peterson, DE, Maddux, LD (1998) Hophornbeam copperleaf (Acalypha ostryfolia) biology and control. Weed Technol 12:515521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, WO, Kollman, GE, Swittenbank, C, Yih, RY (1978) Rh-6201 (Blazer): a new broad spectrum herbicide for postemergence use in soybeas. J Agric Food Chem 26:285286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G, Jackson, LA, Mason, DE (1986) Yield response of weed-free soybeans (Glycine max) to injury from postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Sci 34:304307 10.1017/S0043174500066868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, JA (1977) A synopsis of Phaseoleae (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae). Ph.D. dissertation. Ames IA: Iowa State University. 298 pGoogle Scholar
Mangialardi, JP (2015) Postemergence control of Palmer amaranth with mesotrione-based herbicide mixtures and the impact of lactofen and planting date on the growth, development, and yield of indeterminate soybean. Master’s thesis. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University. 72 pGoogle Scholar
Nelson, KA, Renner, KA, Hammerschmidt, R (2002) Soybean: cultivar and herbicide selection affects soybean development and the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot. Agron J 94:12701281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, KA, Rottinghaus, GE, Nelso, TE (2007) Effect of lactofen application timing on yield and isoflavone concentration in soybean seed. Agron J 99:645649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlowski, JM (2015) Evaluation of input-sensitive soybean management systems and the effect of lactofen application on soybean physiology. Ph.D. dissertation. Lexington KY: University of Kentucky. 131 pGoogle Scholar
Riley, EB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timing and glyphosate tank-mix combinations on the survival of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in soybean. Weed Technol 28:19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringdahl, CA (2001) Nightshade (Solanum spp.) control in pinto bean with herbicides applied at reduced rates. Master’s thesis. Fargo, ND; North Dakota State University. 55pGoogle Scholar
Ruff, DF (1993) Physiological response, cultivar response, and potential residues of fomesafen in snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Ph.D. dissertation. Fayetteville AR: University of Arkansas. 138 pGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Bish, MD, Bradley, KW, Bond, JA (2018) A midsouthern consultant’s survey on weed management practices in soybean. Weed Technol 32:116125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2017) Perspectives on potential soybean yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 31:148154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey–broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci 66:275287 Google Scholar
Wichert, RA, Talbert, RE (1993) Soybean [Glycine max (L.)] response to lactofen. Weed Sci 41:2327 10.1017/S0043174500057520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MM II, Nelson, RL (2014) Vegetable soybean tolerance to bentazon, fomesafen, imazamox, linuron, and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 28:601607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, BG, Young, JM, Matthews, JL, Owen, MDK, Zelaya, IA, Hartzler, RG, Wax, LM, Rorem, KW, Bollero, GA (2003) Soybean development and yield as affected by three postemergence herbicides. Agron J 95:11521156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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: 7
Total number of PDF views: 75 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 25th June 2018 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-b4dcdd7-9fdqb Total loading time: 0.242 Render date: 2020-12-03T13:48:58.427Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 12:58:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

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.

Soybean Flower and Pod Response to Fomesafen, Acifluorfen, and Lactofen
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.

Soybean Flower and Pod Response to Fomesafen, Acifluorfen, and Lactofen
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.

Soybean Flower and Pod Response to Fomesafen, Acifluorfen, and Lactofen
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *