Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:25:50.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Control in Soybean (Glycine max) with Imazaquin and Metribuzin Combinations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Etheridge ,
Edward C. Murdock ,
Gregory S. Stapleton  and
Joe E. Toler
Robert E. Etheridge
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Clemson Univ., Clemson. SC 29634
Edward C. Murdock
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Clemson Univ., Clemson. SC 29634
Gregory S. Stapleton
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Clemson Univ., Clemson. SC 29634
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Dep. Exp. Stat., Clemson Univ., Clemson. SC 29634
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1993 and 1994 to evaluate sicklepod control with combinations of imazaquin + metribuzin at lower than normal use rates. Soybean was seeded in late-May to early-June each year and imazaquin and metribuzin were applied PPI alone at 0.75 and 1x and 0.5, 0.75, and 1x their registered rates, respectively, and in factorial combinations of their 0.5 and 0.75x rates. The registered (1x) rates for imazaquin and metribuzin on this soil type are 0.14 and 0.43 kg/ha, respectively. Several standard sequential treatments and flumetsulam + trifluralin PPI at 0.06 + 0.70 and 0.07 + 0.95 kg/ha were included for comparison. Sicklepod control and soybean seed yield responses differed between 1993 and 1994. In 1993, the combinations of imazaquin + metribuzin averaged 90% control 6 wk after planting (WAP) and soybean seed yield increased 75% compared to the untreated check. Imazaquin + metribuzin at their respective 0.5x rate was as effective as any treatment evaluated. In 1994, sicklepod control was generally lower with all treatments. Soybean seed yield was reduced due to sicklepod interference with soil-applied treatments alone. However, imazaquin + metribuzin at their respective 0.75x rate provided sicklepod control levels and reductions in weed biomass similar to those observed with flumetsulam + trifluralin at 0.07 + 0.95 kg/ha and the sequential treatments, and increased soybean seed yield 19% compared to the untreated check.

Keywords

Flumetsulam, N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-5-methyl [1,2,4] triazolo [1,5-α] pyrimidine-2-sulfonamideimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidmetribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onetrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminesicklepod. Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby #3 CASOBsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., ‘Bryan.'Reduced-rate combinationssequential treatmentsflumetsulamimazaquinmetribuzintrifluralinCASOB
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 78 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Resumption of growth. p. 19–157 in Weed-Crop Ecology. Principles of Weed Management. Bartlett, J. P. and Pitcher, J. H., eds., Breton Publishers, North Scituate, MA.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1995. Broadstrike + Treflan® Product Label, p. 589–593 in Crop Protection Reference. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1995. Canopy® Product Label. p. 781–786 in Crop Protection Reference. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
4. Anonymous. 1995. Scepter® 70 DG Product Label. p. 192–198 in Crop Protection Reference. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
5. Anonymous. 1995. Sencor® DF Product Label. p. 1282–1306 in Crop Protection Reference. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
6. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1985. Influence of weed management and cropping systems on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed in the soil. Weed Sci. 33:800–804.Google Scholar
7. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
8. Burnside, O. C. and Moomaw, R. S. 1977. Control of weeds in narrow-row soybeans. Agron. J. 69:793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Coble, H. D. and Schrader, J. W. 1973. Soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 21:308–309.Google Scholar
10. Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16:396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:531–535.Google Scholar
12. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey-Southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:392–407.Google Scholar
13. Etheridge, R. E., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. S., and Gossett, B. J. 1994. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) control in soybean with Treflan + Broadstrike. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:65.Google Scholar
14. Fedtke, C. 1979. Physiological responses of soybean (Glycine max) plants to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 27:192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Fedtke, C. 1991. Deamination of metribuzin in tolerant and susceptible soybean (Glycine max) cultivars. Pestic. Sci. 31:175–183.Google Scholar
16. Hackett, N. 1990. Imazaquin behavior in the soil. American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, NJ. 23 p.Google Scholar
17. Hardcastle, W. S. 1974. Differences in the tolerance of metribuzin by varieties of soybeans. Weed Res. 14:181–184.Google Scholar
18. Helms, R. S., Tripp, T. N., Smith, R. J. Jr., Baldwin, F. L., and Hackworth, M. 1989. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to imazaquin residues in a soybean (Glycine max) and rice rotation. Weed Technol. 3:513–517.Google Scholar
19. Hsu, J. C. 1984. Constrained simultaneous confidence intervals for comparisons with the best. Ann. Stat. 12:1136–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Isaacs, M. A., Murdock, E. C., Toler, J. E., and Wallace, S. U., 1989. Effect of late-season herbicide applications on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed production and viability. Weed Sci. 37:761–765.Google Scholar
21. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Miller, D. K. and Griffin, J. L. 1994 Comparison of herbicide programs and cultivation for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) control in soybean. Weed Technol. 8:77–82.Google Scholar
23. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Murdock, E. C. 1983. Systems for control of Florida beggarweed in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:421.Google Scholar
25. Murphy, T. R., Gossett, B. J., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Dormancy and field burial of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) seed. Weed Sci. 34:260–265.Google Scholar
26. Newson, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Influence of cultivation timing on weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 8:760–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacing, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.Google Scholar
28. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1991. Efficacy of imazaquin on various weed species. Weed Sci. 39:243–250.Google Scholar
30. Shaw, D. R., Newson, L. J., and Smith, C. A. 1991. Influence of cultivation timing on chemical control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Sherman, M. E., Thompson, L. Jr., and Wilkinson, R. E. 1983. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) management in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Sims, B. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Mutual influences of seedling johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:139–147.Google Scholar
34. Teem, D. S., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis): Geographic distribution, germination, and emergence. Weed Sci. 28:68–71.Google Scholar
35. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.Google Scholar
36. Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., Hauser, E., Isenhour, D. J., Todd, J. W., and Buchanan, G. A. 1984. Effects of insecticide, weed-free period, and row spacing on soybean (Glycine max) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) growth. Weed Sci. 32:702–706.Google Scholar
37. Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bernard, R. L. 1976. Differential response of soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:484–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:169–174.Google Scholar