Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T17:08:37.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence Flumioxazin and Pendimethalin and Postemergence Herbicide Systems for Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sarah Taylor-Lovell ,
Loyd M. Wax  and
German Bollero
Sarah Taylor-Lovell*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
Invasive Weed Management Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Urbana, IL 61801
German Bollero
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: staylor-lovell@dow.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 at two Illinois locations to compare flumioxazin and pendimethalin for preemergence (PRE) weed control and determine the benefit of these herbicides when followed by (fb) postemergence (POST) herbicides, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and imazamox. In early weed control ratings taken before POST applications, flumioxazin alone at 105 g ai/ha or pendimethalin alone at 1,120 g ai/ha resulted in less than 80% control of giant foxtail, but controlled common lambsquarters at least 85% in all experiments. Control of large-seeded broadleaf weeds with flumioxazin or pendimethalin varied greatly between experiments. At Urbana in 1998, where moisture was adequate before and after PRE applications, flumioxazin controlled velvetleaf, common cocklebur, and ivyleaf morningglory at least 90%. With the latter two species, control decreased in the subsequent year, probably because of the reduced precipitation after the PRE applications. Sequential applications including a PRE herbicide provided control up to 25% greater than did POST only treatments. At Dekalb in both years and Urbana in 1998, soybean yields were greater with most treatments containing a PRE fb POST application than with the treatments containing only POST applications.

Keywords

Flumioxazinglyphosateimazamoximazethapyrpendimethalincommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. # ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrResidual weed controlsoil-applied herbicidesALS, acetolactate synthasefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 502 - 511
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

Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3: 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Crotser, M. P., and Witt, W. W. 1997. Relative competitiveness and phenology of ALS resistant and non-ALS resistant smooth pigweed biotypes. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 48.Google Scholar
Foes, M. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1997. Postemergence options for control of kochia in corn. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 77.Google Scholar
Franzenburg, D. D., Owen, M. D. K., Lux, J. F., and Adam, K. W. 1998. Herbicide application strategies for weed control in glyphosate tolerant soybean. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 27.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. 1991. Why get resistance if it can be prevented or delayed. In Caseley, J. C., Cussans, G. W., and Atkin, R. K., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Weeds and Crops. Oxford, U.K.: Butterworth–Heinemann. pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Hofer, J. M., Peterson, D. E., Gordon, W. B., Staggenborg, S. A., and Fjell, D. L. 1998. Yield potential and response of glyphosate-resistant soybean varieties to imidazolinone herbicides. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 25.Google Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol. 8: 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, C., Penner, D., and Kwon, C. S. 1995. Response of chlorsulfuron-resistant biotype of Kochia scoparia to ALS inhibiting herbicides and piperonyl butoxide. Weed Sci. 43: 561–565.Google Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 12–21.Google Scholar
Lovell, S. T., Wax, L. M., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. E. 1996. Imidazolinone and sulfonylurea resistance in a biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci. 44: 789–794.Google Scholar
McGlamery, M., Hager, A., and Sprague, C. 1999. Weed control for corn, soybeans, and sorghum. In Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Extension. pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. 1995. A comparison of imazethapyr and AC 299,263 for postemergence weed control in soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 129.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A., Renner, K., and Penner, D. 1998. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 46: 587–594.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A. and O'Donovan, J. T. 1980. Interaction between glyphosate and various herbicides for broadleaved weed control. Weed Res. 20: 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D. C., Kieffer, D. L., Simmons, F. W., and Wax, L. M. 1998. Influence of weed duration on glyphosate resistant soybean. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 119.Google Scholar
Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. Herbicidal efficacy of S-53482 and factors affecting the phytotoxicity and the efficacy. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 34: 12.Google Scholar
Schmitzer, P. R., Eilers, R. J., and Cseke, C. 1993. Lack of cross-resistance of imazaquin-resistant Xanthium strumarium acetolactate synthase to flumetsulam and chlorimuron. Plant Physiol. 103: 281–283.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1995. Characteristics of ALS-resistant Amaranthus spp. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 119.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., Johnson, D. H., Wichert, R. A., Kendig, J. A., Ruff, D. F., and McCarty, J. T. 1990. Field screening of new chemicals for herbicidal activity, 1989. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Ser. 395: 22.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Nelson, R. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 15: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unland, R. D., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 1997. Interactions of diphenylether herbicides with imazamox. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 28.Google Scholar
Unland, R. D., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 1998. Weed control with imazamox and diphenylether herbicides in soybean. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 121.Google Scholar
Valent. 1998. Valor Herbicide Technical Information Bulletin. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. Corporation.Google Scholar
WSSA Herbicide Handbook Committee (Ahrens, W. H., ed.) 1994. Herbicide Handbook. Supplement to 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482: a new N-phenyl phthalimide herbicide. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1: 69–75.Google Scholar