Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T06:28:57.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Low-Dose Flumioxazin and Metribuzin Postemergence Applications on Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

Daniel O. Stephenson IV Open the ORCID record for Daniel O. Stephenson IV [Opens in a new window] ,
Todd A. Spivey ,
Michael A. Deliberto Jr. ,
David C. Blouin ,
Brandi C. Woolam  and
Trace B. Buck
Daniel O. Stephenson IV*
Affiliation:
Professor, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Alexandria, LA, USA
Todd A. Spivey
Affiliation:
Former Assistant Professor, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Alexandria, LA, USA
Michael A. Deliberto Jr.
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Brandi C. Woolam
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Alexandria, LA, USA
Trace B. Buck
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Alexandria, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel O. Stephenson, IV, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, 8105 Tom Bowman Drive, Alexandria, LA 71302 (Email: dstephenson@agcenter.lsu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All herbicides will move off-target to sensitive crops when not applied correctly. Therefore, low-dose applications of flumioxazin and metribuzin were evaluated in soybean at the unifoliate, V2, and V4 growth stages. Rates evaluated were 12.5%, 25%, and 50% of the labeled use rates of 72 and 316 g ai ha−1 of flumioxazin and metribuzin, respectively. Flumioxazin injury was characterized by necrosis and visible height and width reduction. Injury increased with rate 3 d after treatment (DAT), with unifoliate, V2, and V4 soybean injured 15% to 30%, 18% to 27%, and 5% to 8%, respectively. Unifoliate and V4 soybean were injured more than V4 soybean 3 to 14 DAT, but injury decreased to <5% by 42 DAT. Soybean yields in the flumioxazin study were 92% to 96% of the nontreated, resulting in a yield loss of 196 to 393 kg ha−1 and a revenue loss of 71 to 141 US$ ha−1. Metribuzin injury was primarily chlorosis with necrosis and a visible reduction in soybean height and width. Soybean at the V2 growth stage was injured 14% more than V4 soybean 3 DAT, regardless of metribuzin rate. Injury to V2 and V4 soybean was similar 14 DAT, with injury of 21% to 40% across rates. Soybean injury when treated at the V2 and V4 growth stages was 6% to 29% 42 DAT compared to unifoliate soybean at 0 to 17%. Soybean yields in the metribuzin study yields were 96% to 98% of the nontreated. However, a 2% to 4% reduction equates to a loss of 90 to 180 kg ha−1 and a revenue loss of 32 to 65 US$ ha−1. Unifoliate and V2 soybean are more sensitive to a low dose of flumioxazin POST, and V2 and V4 soybean are more sensitive to a low dose of metribuzin POST. Injury and the impact on soybean growth could potentially cause economic loss for a soybean producer.

Keywords

Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, LincolnFlumioxazinmetribuzinsoybean, Glycine max L.Off-target movementtank contamination
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 87 - 94
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Stephenson DO, Spivey TA, Deliberto MA, Blouin DC, Woolam BC, Buck TB (2018) Effects of low-dose flumioxazin and metribuzin postemergence applications on soybean. Weed Technol 33:87–94. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.101

References

Al-Khatib, K, Claassen, MM, Stahlman, PW, Geier, PW, Regehr, DL, Duncan, SR, Heer, WF (2003) Grain sorghum response to simulated drift of glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261–26510.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0261:GSRTSD]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Valor SX® herbicide product label. Valent Publication No. 2016-VSX-0001. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. 31 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) Metribuzin 75® herbicide product label. Loveland Publication No. 092513 V1D 09R16. Greeley, CO: Loveland Products, Inc. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Bailey, JA, Kapusta, G (1993) Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol 7:740–745Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Shugart, J, Leifheit, N, Curry, M, Gray, T (2018) Effects of low-dose applications of 2,4-D and dicamba on watermelon. Weed Technol 32:267–27210.1017/wet.2018.4Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL (2002) Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:580–586Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587–59210.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0587:EOCVOC]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:453–46010.1614/WT01-110Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE, Burmond, DT, Pennington, JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans. Crop Sci 6:929–931Google Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK (2009) Soybean canopy and tillage effects on emergence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from a natural seed bank. Weed Sci 57:644–65110.1614/WS-09-074.1Google Scholar
Jordan, DL, Spears, JF, Wilcut, JW (2003) Tolerance of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to herbicides applied postemergence. Peanut Sci 30:8–13Google Scholar
Jursik, M, Andr, J, Holec, J, Soukup, J (2011) Efficacy and selectively of post-emergent application of flumioxazin and oxyfluorfen in sunflower. Plant Soil Environ 57:532–539Google Scholar
Legates, DR, McCabe, GJ Jr. (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35:233–241Google Scholar
Lindsey, L (2018) Soybean planting date, row width, and seeding rate recommendations. https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/2017-09/soybean-planting-date-row-width-and-seeding-rate-recommendations. Accessed: February 19, 2018Google Scholar
[LSUAC-CES] Louisiana State University Agricultural Center – Cooperative Extension Service (2018) Planting dates. Page 5 in Spivey, T, ed. 2018 Soybean Variety Yields and Production Practices. Baton Rouge, LA: LSUAC-CESGoogle Scholar
Matocha, MA, Jones, CA (2015) Effect of carrier volume on grain sorghum response to simulated drift of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 26:684–68810.1614/WT-D-15-00006.1Google Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 28:1009–1014Google Scholar
Naeve, SL, Nicolai, D (2018) When and how to plant soybean. https://extension.umn.edu/soybean-planting/when-and-how-plant-soybean. Accessed: November 20, 2018Google Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, IA (2011) Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri. Weed Res 51:99–11210.1111/j.1365-3180.2010.00838.xGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Sm, Ward, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risk of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60 (SP1):31–62Google Scholar
Pederson, P (2018) Soybean Planting Date. http://publications.iowa.gov/7967/1/PlantingDate.pdf. Accessed: February 19, 2018Google Scholar
Prince, JM, Shaw, DR, Givens, WA, Owen, MDK, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Jordan, DL (2012) Benchmark study: IV – Survey of grower practices for managing glyphosate-resistant weed populations. Weed Technol 26:543–54810.1614/WT-D-11-00094.1Google Scholar
Ross, J (2011) Soybean planting date recommendations. http://www.arkansas-crops.com/2011/05/05/soybean-planting-date-recommendations/. Accessed: February 19, 2018Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 212–213 and 308–309Google Scholar
Sinclair, TR (2004) Improved carbon and nitrogen assimilation for increased yield. Pages 537–568 in Boerma HR, Specht JE, ed. Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 3rd edn. Agron Monogr 16. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. doi:10.2134/agronmonogr16.3ed.frontmatterGoogle Scholar
Steppig, NR, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Lorenz, GM (2017) Insecticide seed treatments as safeners to drift rates of herbicides in soybean and grain sorghum. Weed Technol 32:150–15810.1017/wet.2017.102Google Scholar
Taran, B, Holm, F, Banniza, S (2013) Response of chickpea cultivars to pre- and post-emergence herbicide applications. Can J Plant Sci 93:279–286Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service (2018) Quick Stats - Louisiana. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Lite/result.php?D2158C9C-5B23-33FD-8265-3C771EE2AE7A. Accessed: March 28, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture – National Agricultural Statistics Service (2010) Field Crops Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates – October 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. p 25Google Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM (2011) Residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control. J Cotton Sci 15:89–99Google Scholar
Willmott, CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2:184–194Google Scholar
Willmott, CJ, Matsuura, K (2006) On the use of dimensioned measures of error to evaluate the performance of spatial interpolators. Intl J Geogr Info Sci 20:89–102.Google Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR, Maybank, J (1992) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Pages 29–52 in The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Regina, SK: Agriculture CanadaGoogle Scholar