Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:08:49.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean Sensitivity to Florpyrauxifen-benzyl during Reproductive Growth and the Impact on Subsequent Progeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2017

M. Ryan Miller  and
Jason K. Norsworthy
M. Ryan Miller
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Professor and Professor Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jason K. Norsworthy, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704. (Email: mrm032@uark.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To address recent concerns related to auxin herbicide drift onto soybean, a study was developed to understand the susceptibility of the reproductive stage of soybean to a new auxin herbicide compared with dicamba. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl is under development as the second herbicide in a new structural class of synthetic auxins, the arylpicolinates. Field studies were conducted to (1) evaluate and compare reproductive soybean injury and yield following applications of florpyrauxifen-benzyl or dicamba across various concentrations and reproductive growth stages and (2) determine whether low-rate applications of florpyrauxifen-benzyl or dicamba to soybean in reproductive stages would have similar effect on the progeny of the affected plants. Soybean were treated with 0, 1/20, or 1/160, of the 1X rate of florpyrauxifen-benzyl (30 g ai ha−1) or dicamba (560 g ae ha−1) at R1, R2, R3, R4, or R5 growth stage. Soybean plant height and yield was reduced from 1/20X dicamba across all reproductive stages. High drift rates (1/20X) of florpyrauxifen-benzyl also reduced soybean plant height >25% and yield across R1 to R4 stages. Germination, stand, plant height, and yield of the offspring of soybean plants treated with dicamba and florpyrauxifen-benzyl were significantly affected. Dicamba applied at a rate of 1/20X at R4 and R5 resulted in 20% and 35% yield reduction for the offspring, respectively. A similar reduction occurred from florpyrauxifen-benzyl applied at R4 and R5 at the 1/20X rate, resulting in 15% to 24% yield reduction for the offspring, respectively. Based on these findings, it is suggested that growers use caution when applying these herbicides in the vicinity of reproductive soybean.

Keywords

William Johnson, Purdue UniversityDicambaflorpyrauxifen-benzylsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Auxinflorpyrauxifen-benzylherbicide driftoff-target movementprogenyreproductiverice
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 Google Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlations to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google Scholar
Barber, LT (2016) Dicamba drift cutting Mid-South soybean yields. Delta Farm Press. http://www.deltafarmpress.com/soybeans/dicamba-drift-cutting-mid-south-soybean-yields. Accessed March 1, 2017Google Scholar
Barber, LT, Norsworthy, JK, McCown, MS (2016) Dicamba Effects on Soybean Plants and Their Progeny. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service. Arkansas Soybean Research Studies 2014. Pp 147–149 Google Scholar
Devine, MD (1989) Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev Weed Sci 4:191–213 Google Scholar
Epp, JB, Alexander, AL, Balko, TW, Buysse, AM, Brewster, WK, Bryan, K, Daeuble, JF, Fields, SC, Gast, RE, Green, RA, Irvine, NM, Lo, WC, Lowe, CT, Renga, JM, Richburg, JS, Ruiz, JM, Satchivi, NM, Schmitzer, PR, Siddall, TL, Webster, JD, Weimer, MR, Whiteker, GT, Yerkes, CN (2016) The discovery of ArlyexTM active and RinskorTM active: two novel auxin herbicides. J Bioorg Med Chem 24:362–371 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO III, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Sci 27:696–703 Google Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112 Google Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut Control Assoc 28:1009–1014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2004) Conventional soybean plant and progeny response to glyphosate. Weed Technol 18:527–531 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T, Scott, R, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE, Reynolds, D (2015) Understanding the risks associated with increased use of auxin herbicides in Midsouth crops: what are the concerns? Proc Southern Weed Sci Soc 68:180 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powels, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide-resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP2):31–62 Google Scholar
Purcell, LC, Salmeron, M, Ashlock, L (2014) Soybean growth and development. Arkansas Soybean Production Handbook, MP197. Pp 1–8Google Scholar
Scott, RC, Barber, LT, Boyd, JW, Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, N (2014) Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, Miscellaneous Publication 44. Pp 38–57 Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G, Penner, D (1989) Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev Weed Sci 4:215–231 Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB Jr, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643 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. In Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Pp 29–52 Google Scholar
Womac, AR, Goodwin, JC, Hart, WE (1997) Tip Selection for Precision Application of Herbicides. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin/430. Accessed: December 11, 2016Google Scholar
Yarpuz-Bozdogan, N (2011) Drift of pesticides. Encyclopedia of Pest Management. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/E-EPM-120009991#.VSP_7rB8OM8. Accessed: September 29, 2016Google Scholar