Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:08:19.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light Interception and Yield Response of Ultra-Short–Season Soybean to Diphenylether Herbicides in the Midsouthern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey T. Edwards  and
Larry C. Purcell
Jeffrey T. Edwards
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 1366 W Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Larry C. Purcell*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 1366 W Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lpurcell@uark.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Full canopy closure and light interception are critical to obtaining full yield potential of ultra-short–season soybean in the midsouthern United States. We hypothesized that herbicide applications that resulted in soybean leaf injury would reduce season-long light interception and yield of ultra-short–season soybean grown in this environment. Experiments were conducted in 2001, 2002, and 2003 at Fayetteville, AR, to determine the effect of the diphenylether herbicides acifluorfen and lactofen on light interception and yield of maturity group (MG) 0 and II soybean. Factors evaluated included soybean MG, herbicide rate, treatment timing, and soybean seeding density. When applied at soybean growth stage (GS) V3, 0.2 kg ai/ha lactofen reduced green leaf area immediately after application and final canopy closure relative to soybean treated with 0.6 or 0.2 kg/ha acifluorfen and untreated soybean. Herbicide application did not affect yield of well-watered soybean when applied at GS V3 in 2001 or at early reproductive development in 2003. In 2002, an irrigation problem resulted in a period of water-deficit stress during seed fill of MG II soybean. Under these conditions, treatment with acifluorfen at GS V3 reduced soybean yield, and treatment with lactofen during early reproductive development reduced soybean yield, relative to untreated soybean. This research indicates that diphenylether herbicides can be safely applied to well-watered ultra-short–season soybean, but yield reduction can occur when applied to soybean that is not well watered.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidlactofen, (±)-2-ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoatemetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetemidesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘AC Comoran’, ‘Dwight’Cumulative intercepted photosynthetically active radiationherbicide injuryCIPAR, cumulative intercepted photosynthetically active radiationGS, soybean growth stageMG, maturity groupPAR, photosynthetically active radiation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 168 - 175
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

Allen, R. 2003. NASS Prospective Plantings. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Annandale, J. G., Jovanic, N. Z., Benade, N., and Allen, R. G. 2002. Software for missing data error analysis of Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration. Irrig. Sci 21:57–67.Google Scholar
Ashlock, L. O., Klerk, R., Huitink, G., Keisling, T., and Vories, E. D. 2000. Planting Practices. Arkansas Soybean Handbook MPV 197. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Vories, E. D. 2000. Optimizing soybean plant population for a short-season production system in the southern USA. Crop Sci 40:757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, J., Ferguson, J., Edwards, J., and Tacker, P. 1990. A micro-computer-based irrigation scheduler for the humid mid-south region. Appl. Eng. Agric 6:289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. T., Purcell, L. C., Vories, E. D., Shannon, J. G., and Ashlock, L. O. 2003. Short-season soybean cultivars have similar yields with less irrigation than longer-season cultivars. Crop Manage. Online: DOI:10.1094/CM-2003-0922-01-RS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stages of Soybean Development. Special Rep. 80 Ames, IA: Extension Service, Agricultural Experimental Station, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A. 1982. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., ASCE 108:225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. R., Gossett, B. J., Murphy, T. R., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J. Prod. Agric 4:407–411.Google Scholar
Ishibashi, T., Sneller, C. H., and Shannon, J. G. 2003. Soybean yield potential and phenology in the ultra-short-season production system. Agron. J 95:1082–1087.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G., Jackson, L. A., and Mason, D. S. 1986. Yield response of weed-free soybeans (Glycine max) to injury from postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Sci. 34:304–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Young, B. G. 2001. Response of double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:300–305.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. 1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 281:277–294.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Hemp sesbania interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci. 50:34–41.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14:413–422.Google Scholar
Purcell, L. C. 2000. Soybean canopy coverage and light interception measurements using digital imagery. Crop Sci 40:834–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, L. C., Ball, R. A., Reaper, J. D. I., and Vories, E. D. 2002. Radiation use efficiency and biomass production in soybean at different plant population densities. Crop Sci 42:172–177.Google Scholar
Purcell, L. C., Sinclair, T. R., and McNew, R. W. 2003. Drought avoidance assessment for summer annual crops using long-term weather data. Agron. J 95:1566–1576.Google Scholar
Purcell, L. C. and Specht, J. E. 2004. Physiological traits for ameliorating drought stress. in Boema, H. R. and Specht, J. E., eds. Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 3rd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Pp. 569–620.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. T. and NeSmith, D. S. 1991. Temperature and crop development. in Hanks, J. and Ritchie, J. T., eds. Modeling Plant and Soil Systems— Agronomy Monograph no. 31. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. Pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Mgmt. Sci 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Shibles, R. M. and Weber, C. R. 1965. Leaf area, solar radiation interception and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Sci 5:575–577.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. 1984. Leaf area development in field-grown soybeans. Agron. J 76:141–146.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. and Muchow, R. C. 1999. Radiation use efficiency. Adv. in Agron 65:216–265.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Reynolds, D. B., and Griffin, J. L. 1993. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with lactofen plus chlorimuron. Weed Technol. 7:311–316.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A. and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) response to lactofen. Weed Sci. 41:23–27.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Young, J. M., Matthews, J. L., Owen, M. D., Zelaya, I. A., Hartzler, R. G., Wax, L. M., Rorem, K. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2003. Soybean development and yield as affected by three postemergence herbicides. Agron. J 95:1152–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar