Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:43:44.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HPPD inhibitor-susceptible soybean growth, yield, and economic return following isoxaflutole and mesotrione applied postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2022

Daniel O. Stephenson IV Open the ORCID record for Daniel O. Stephenson IV [Opens in a new window] ,
Donnie K. Miller Open the ORCID record for Donnie K. Miller [Opens in a new window] ,
Jason A. Bond Open the ORCID record for Jason A. Bond [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael A. Deliberto Jr Open the ORCID record for Michael A. Deliberto Jr [Opens in a new window]
Daniel O. Stephenson IV*
Affiliation:
Professor, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Alexandria, LA, USA
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
Professor, Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, St Joseph, LA, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Michael A. Deliberto Jr
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel O. Stephenson IV, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Alexandria, LA, USA 71302. (Email: dstephenson@agcenter.lsu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of different herbicide-resistant soybean technologies in proximity could lead to injury and yield loss due to an application error. Research was initiated to evaluate the effect of 6.25%, 12.5%, and 100% doses of isoxaflutole and mesotrione field use doses applied postemergence to 4-hyroxyphenylpyruvate (HPPD) inhibitor-susceptible soybean, representing physical drift or misapplication doses. Visible injury manifested as chlorosis with slight necrosis, progressing to necrosis and height reduction, with visible height reduction as the only symptom. Isoxaflutole at 6.25% and 12.5% injured V2 soybean more than V1 or V4 soybean at all evaluation dates. This is supported by soybean height data at 14, 28, and 42 d after treatment (DAT). Following the 100% dose, maximum injury occurred at 28 DAT with V1, V2, and V4 soybean injured 90%, 85%, and 72%, but injury declined over time. All isoxaflutole treatments reduced yield at least 310 kg ha−1, with no differences among application timings or between the two lowest doses for a revenue loss of US$147 ha−1 to US$623 ha−1. Visible injury following mesotrione manifested as chlorosis and necrosis advancing to visible height reduction. Following mesotrione at 6.25% and 12.5%, injury ranged from 20% to 36% among application timings and did not differ at 3 to 21 DAT. Soybean heights at 28 and 42 DAT do not support injury observations; therefore, the greater injury was due to chlorosis and necrosis. Following mesotrione at 100%, sensitivity decreased at 3 to 14 DAT when applied to later growth stages, with no differences at 42 DAT. Yields did not differ among application timings, but yield losses were at least 240 kg ha−1, with revenue losses of US$60 ha−1 and US$373 ha−1. Producers are cautioned to prevent off-target movement or errant application of isoxaflutole or mesotrione to HPPD inhibitor-susceptible soybean.

Keywords

IsoxaflutolemesotrionesoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.Misapplicationoff-target movementphysical drift
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 636 - 642
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Anonymous (2022a) Alite 27™ herbicide label. https://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldGGA000.pdf. Accessed: May 24, 2022Google Scholar
Anonymous (2022b) Motif™ herbicide label. https://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldE6K000.pdf. Accessed: May 24, 2022Google Scholar
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 17:261–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, JA, Kapusta, G (1993) Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol 7:740–745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, D (2018) Mesotrione + S-metolachlor applied preemergence for control of multiple resistant weeds. Page 291 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Greensboro, NC: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2017) A final report on dicamba-injured soybean acres. Integrated Pest and Crop Management Newsletter 27(10). https://ipm.missouri.edu/cropPest/2017/10/final_report_dicamba_injured_soybean/. Accessed: May 24, 2022Google Scholar
Brown, LR, Robinson, DE, Chandler, K, Swanton, CJ, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Simulated mesotrione drift followed by glyphosate, imazethapyr, bentazon or glyphosate plus chlorimuron in soybean. Can J Plant Sci 89:265–272 CrossRefGoogle 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 32:267–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL (2002) Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:580–586 CrossRefGoogle 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 16:587–592 CrossRefGoogle 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 17:452–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE, Burmond, DT, Pennington, JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans. Crop Sci 6:929–931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, RR, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google 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 57:644–651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, WG, Chahal, GS, Regeh, DL (2012) Efficacy of various corn herbicides applied preplant incorporated and preemergence. Weed Technol 26:220–229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR (2018) Soybean response to dicamba: a meta-analysis. Weed Technol 32:507–512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legates, DR, McCabe, GJ Jr (1999) Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35:233–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, B, Bowers, D, Franssen, A, Schraer, M (2018) Soybean weed management tool from Syngenta. Page 248 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Greensboro, NC: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Matocha, MA, Jones, CA (2015) Effect of carrier volume on grain sorghum response to simulated drift of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol 29:684–688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 28:1009–1014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT, Ikley, JT, Spaunhorst, DJ, Butts, TR (2016) Early-season Palmer amaranth and waterhemp control from preemergence programs utilizing 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting and auxinic herbicides in soybean. Weed Technol 30:67–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, 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):31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rana, SS, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC (2014) Soybean sensitivity to drift rates of imazosulfuron. Weed Technol 28:443–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schryver, MG, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Tranel, PJ, Sikkema, PH (2017) Control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in three new herbicide-resistant soybean varieties in Ontario. Weed Technol 31:828–837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, BP, Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Reynolds, DB, Golden, BR, Edwards, HM (2019) Corn (Zea mays L.) response to sublethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages. Weed Technol 33:595–600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Spivey, TA, Deliberto, MA Jr, Blouin, DC, Woolam, BC, Buck, TB (2019a) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) injury, growth, and yield following low-dose flumioxazin postemergence applications. J Cotton Sci 23:218–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO IV, Spivey, TA, Deliberto, MA Jr, Blouin, DC, Woolam, BC, Buck, TB (2019b) Effects of low-dose flumioxazin and metribuzin postemergence applications on soybean. Weed Technol 33:87–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steppig, NR, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Lorenz, GM (2018) Insecticide seed treatments as safeners to drift rates of herbicides in soybean and grain sorghum. Weed Technol 32:150–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, P, Richards, C, Buren, L, Glasgow, L (2002) Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag Sci 58:981–984 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2021) Quick Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/EA6ABEB6-F4D9-3BD3-BC97-E1F0D9158227. Accessed: September 1, 2021Google Scholar
Willmott, CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2:184–194 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 Canada Google Scholar
Young, BG, Young, JM, Matthews, JL (2003) Soybean (Glycine max) response to foliar application of mesotrione. Weed Technol 17:651–654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar