Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T22:48:17.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Seedling Growth Parameters to Classify Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivar Sensitivity to Sulfentrazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Zhaohu Li ,
Robert H. Walker ,
Glenn Wehtje  and
H. Gary Hancock
Zhaohu Li
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412
Glenn Wehtje
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5412
H. Gary Hancock
Affiliation:
FMC Corporation, Hamilton, GA 31811
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hypocotyl and root length reduction of soybean (Glycine max) seedlings when seeds were exposed to sulfentrazone during germination were used as indices to classify cultivar response to soil-applied sulfentrazone. Seeds of ‘Stonewall’ (sulfentrazone tolerant) and ‘Asgrow 6785’ (sulfentrazone sensitive) were imbibed and allowed to germinate in 0, 1, 5, 10, and 50 ppm aqueous sulfentrazone solutions for 4 d. Hypocotyl and root lengths were reduced in both cultivars, but the reductions were greater for Asgrow 6785 than for Stonewall. Subsequently, the relative sensitivity of 28 cultivars to sulfentrazone was independently determined by two variations of the hypocotyl reduction method (both conducted in the laboratory) and by traditional full-season field evaluation. Results from laboratory and field studies were in agreement for cultivars distinctly sensitive or tolerant to sulfentrazone. However, cultivars with intermediate tolerance in laboratory studies produced variable responses in the field.

Keywords

Sulfentrazone, N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamidesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide toleranceherbicide phytotoxicitycrop tolerancehypocotyl length reductionroot length reductionPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 530 - 535
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

Al-Khatib, K., Libbey, C., Kadir, S., and Boydston, R. 1997. Differential varietal response of green pea (Pisum sativum) to metribuzin. Weed Technol. 11:775–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Hartwig, E. E. 1976. Screening soybeans for tolerance to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:351–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruff, S. A. and Hancock, H. G. 1995. Sulfentrazone: a promising new herbicide for tobacco. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 48:10.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sulfentrazone by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci. 44:12–17.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean cultivar (Glycine max) differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Fribourg, H. A. and Johnson, I. J. 1955. Response of soybean strains to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Agron. J. 47:171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. L. and Habetz, R. J. 1989. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1992. Weed spectrum of F6285 in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:49.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, W. S. 1974. Differences in the tolerance of metribuzin by varieties of soybeans. Weed Res. 14:181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardcastle, W. S. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar response to metribuzin in solution culture. Weed Sci. 27:278–279.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M. and Wax, L. M. 1975. Differential interspecific response of soybean cultivars to bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:516–521.Google Scholar
Kent, L. M., Barrentine, W. L., and Wills, G. D. 1988. Response of twenty determinate soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to imazaquin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:50.Google Scholar
Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to chlorimuron and imazaquin with varying hydroponic solution pH. Weed Technol. 6:382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sij, J. W. and Craigmiles, J. P. 1980. Tolerance of soybean genotypes to metribuzin. Agron. J. 72:167–168.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr., and Caviness, C. E. 1973. Differential responses of soybean cultivars to propanil. Weed Sci. 21:279–281.Google Scholar
Swantek, J. M. 1997. Weed Control and Soybean Tolerance with Sulfentrazone. . University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 183 p.Google Scholar
Swantek, J. M., Sneller, C. H., and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci. 46:271–277.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10:762–765.Google Scholar
Walker, R. H. 1994. F-6285 applied postemergence in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:64.Google Scholar
Walker, R. H., Richburg, J. S., and Jones, R. E. 1992. F6285 efficacy as affected by rate and methods of application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:51.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayes, R. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron, and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Spratlin, C. E. 1995. Soil effects of sulfentrazone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:224–225.Google Scholar