Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T23:34:20.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Weed Management Systems in Narrow-Row, Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michelle L. Wiesbrook ,
William G. Johnson ,
Stephen E. Hart ,
Pauley R. Bradley  and
Loyd M. Wax
Michelle L. Wiesbrook
Affiliation:
University of Illinois and USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL 61801
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Stephen E. Hart
Affiliation:
University of Illinois and USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL 61801
Pauley R. Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
University of Illinois and USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: johnsonwg@missouri.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted near DeKalb and Urbana, IL, and Columbia, MO, in 1997 and 1998 to evaluate weed management systems in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean planted in 18-cm rows. Overall weed control was improved to a greater extent when the rate of glufosinate was increased from 300 to 400 g ai/ha than when the rate of glyphosate increased from 630 to 840 g ae/ha. Sequential applications of glufosinate improved control over single applications, whereas sequential treatments of glyphosate generally provided no advantages over single applications. When averaged across all weed species in these trials, the systems that provided 95% or higher average control were sequential applications of glufosinate, sequential applications of glyphosate, and clomazone followed by (fb) glyphosate. Single applications of glufosinate provided somewhat variable control of giant foxtail, common lambsquarters, ragweed, and common cocklebur similar to that observed with pendimethalin fb imazethapyr. The addition of fomesafen to glufosinate did not improve control of any of the weeds in this study with the exception of velvetleaf at DeKalb. The addition of clomazone to glufosinate treatments resulted in slightly better giant foxtail and velvetleaf control. Single applications of glyphosate provided somewhat variable control of giant ragweed at DeKalb in 1997 and ivyleaf morningglory and common cocklebur control at Columbia. The addition of fomesafen to glyphosate provided an increase in ivyleaf morningglory and common cocklebur control at Columbia but did not improve control of any other species. The addition of clomazone to glyphosate-based programs resulted in slightly higher velvetleaf, common cocklebur, and ivyleaf morningglory control. In the glyphosate-based herbicide programs there were no substantial differences in relative yield, with all programs protecting over 95% of soybean yield. Glufosinate-based programs were effective in protecting 85 to 92% of soybean yield.

Keywords

Clomazonefomesafenglyphosateglufosinateimazethapyrpendimethalincommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgiant foxtailSetaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. # AMBTRivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea L. Jacq. # IPOHEvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. # ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byLPOST, late postemergence, POST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceUAN, 28% urea ammonium nitrate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 122 - 128
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 6: 621–625.Google Scholar
Claassen, M. M., Gordon, W. B., Maddux, L. D., Petersen, D. E., and Stahlman, P. W. 1997. Weed control in solid-seeded versus row planted glyphosate resistant soybean. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 127–128.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., Kapusta, G., and Wax, L. M. 1995. Effect of row spacing on weed control in glyphosate tolerant soybean. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:130.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., Kapusta, G., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Effect of row spacing on weed control in glyphosate tolerate soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37:95.Google Scholar
Johnson, E.O.C., Hart, S. E., Wax, L. M., and Nickell, C. D. 1997. Effect of row spacing on weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean. Proc. North Cent Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 126–127.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1992. Technology transfer for herbicide-tolerant weeds and herbicide-tolerant crops. Weed Technol. 6: 6622–664.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. A comparison of weed management strategies in wide and narrow row glyphosate-resistant soybean systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:17.Google Scholar
Pinnon, P. E. and Kapusta, G. 1996. Weed control in wide and narrow row no-till soybean with glyphosate. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 124.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D. and Johnson, W. G. 1998. Weed control programs in glyphosate-tolerant soybean. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 55: 432–433.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 1999. Weed management with reduced rates of glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 478–483.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Nave, W. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide row soybeans. Weed Sci. 25: 73–77.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. Agriculture. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide Resistant Crops. New York: Lewis Publishers. pp. 213–230.Google Scholar