Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T23:11:44.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time of Application of Cloransulam for Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Control in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rebecca J. Franey  and
Stephen E. Hart
Rebecca J. Franey
Affiliation:
Crop Sciences Department, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Stephen E. Hart*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hart@aesop.rutgers.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Dekalb, IL, in 1996 and 1997 to determine the optimum application timing and rate of cloransulam for giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Cloransulam treatments included preplant incorporated (PPI) and preemergence (PRE) applications of 35 g ai/ha and early postemergence (EPOST), postemergence (POST), and late postemergence (LPOST) applications of 18 or 27 g ai/ha. Cloransulam applied at 18 g/ha was also combined with lactofen at 70 g ai/ha at each POST application timing. At 60 d after LPOST, cloransulam applied PPI provided 68% giant ragweed control in 1996 and 1997 compared to PRE applications, which provided 95 and 25% giant ragweed control, respectively. The reduction in giant ragweed control with PRE applications of cloransulam in 1997 was likely due to insufficient rainfall for activation. Cloransulam applied at 18 g/ha EPOST provided 87 and 88% giant ragweed control, respectively, in 1996 and 1997. Cloransulam applied POST provided 97 and 82% giant ragweed control, respectively, in successive years. Delaying cloransulam application until LPOST reduced giant ragweed control to 53 and 47%, respectively, in 1996 and 1997 compared to EPOST and POST. At EPOST and POST application timings, increasing the rate of cloransulam to 27 g/ha or adding lactofen did not improve giant ragweed control. However, giant ragweed control was improved by at least 20% by increasing the rate of cloransulam to 27 g/ha at LPOST. Similarly, applying cloransulam in combination with lactofen improved giant ragweed control by at least 15% at LPOST.

Keywords

Cloransulam, 3-chloro-2-[[(5-ethoxy-7-fluoro[l,2,4]triazolo[1,5-c]pyrimidin-2yl)sulfonyl]amino]benzoic acid, methyl esterlactofen, (±)-2-ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl) phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoategiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. ♯ AMBTRsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.ImazethapyrAMBTREPOST, early postemergenceLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 825 - 828
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Abul-Fatih, H. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979a. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. I. Influence of species removal on the organization of the plant community. New Phytol. 83:813–816.Google Scholar
Abul-Fatih, H. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979b. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. II. Germination, emergence, growth, and survival. New Phytol. 83:817–827.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:1003–1010.Google Scholar
Bauman, T. T., White, M. D., Mowen, C. E., and Phillips, S. L. 1996. Weed control in glyphosate tolerant soybeans with preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:306–307.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1991. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:358–362.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E. and Maxwell, D. J. 1995. Weed control in sulfonylurea tolerant soybeans. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:330–332.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K., ed. 1998. Herbicide Handbook Supplement to Seventh Edition. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 pp.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. J., Schultz, M. E., Mann, R. K., Cordes, R. C., and Lassiter, R. B. 1994. Weed control in soybeans with cloransulam-methyl. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:124.Google Scholar
Jachetta, J. J., Van Heertum, J. C., and Gerwick, B. C. 1994. Cloransulammethyl: a new herbicide for soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:122–123.Google Scholar
Owen, M.D.K., Lux, J. F., and Pecinovsky, K. T. 1994. Evaluation of herbicide combinations applied early preplant, preemergence and postemergence for weed management in no tillage soybeans. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:320–321.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:559–564.Google Scholar