Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T18:38:20.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Herbicide Effects on Visible Injury, Leaf Area, and Yield of Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bryan F. Johnson
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA 23420
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA 23420
David L. Holshouser
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Suffolk, VA 23437
D. Ames Herbert Jr.
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Suffolk, VA 23437
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, and Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hwilson@vt.edu

Abstract

The failure of glyphosate to control all weeds throughout the entire growing season has sometimes prompted growers to use herbicides other than glyphosate on glyphosate-resistant soybean. Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to investigate potential crop injury by several herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean and to determine the relationships between soybean maturity group, planting date, and herbicide treatment on soybean injury, leaf area index (LAI), and yield. Glyphosate-resistant soybean generally recovered from early-season herbicide injury and LAI reductions; however, some treatments reduced yield. Yield reductions were more common in double-crop soybean than in full-season soybean. In full-season soybean, most yield reductions occurred in the early-maturing ‘RT-386’ cultivar. These yield reductions may be attributed to reduced developmental periods associated with early-maturing cultivars and double-crop soybean that often lead to reduced vegetative growth and limited LAI. Reductions in LAI by some herbicide treatments were not necessarily indicative of yield loss. Further yield reductions associated with herbicide applications occurred, although soybean sometimes produced leaf area exceeding the critical LAI level of 3.5 to 4.0, which is the minimum LAI needed for soybean to achieve maximum yield. Therefore, LAI response to herbicide treatments does not always accurately indicate the response of glyphosate-resistant soybean yield to herbicides.

Type
Research
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

Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr., and Patterson, R. P. 1984. Effect of 2,4-DB on soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 299303.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. 1985. Yield components associated with soybean yield reductions at nonoptimal planting dates. Agron. J. 77: 135140.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Hall, W. 1984. Premature flowering in soybean yield reductions at nonoptimal planting dates as influenced by temperature and photoperiod. Agron. J. 76: 700704.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Harville, B. G. 1992. Explanations for greater light interception in narrow- vs. wide-row soybean. Crop Sci. 32: 198202.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Settimi, J. R. 1986. Photoperiod effect before and after flowering on branch development in determinate soybean. Agron. J. 78: 9951002.Google Scholar
Boquet, D. J., Koonce, K. L., and Walker, D. M. 1982. Selected determinate soybean cultivar yield responses to row spacings and planting dates. Agron. J. 74: 136138.Google Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., and Beighley, D. H. et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-resistant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35: 14611467.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. In Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 252263.Google Scholar
Dunphy, E. J., Hanway, J. J., and Green, D. E. 1979. Soybean yield in relation to days between specific developmental stages. Agron. J. 71: 917920.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 354360.Google Scholar
Harris, J. R., Gossett, B. J., Murphy, T. R., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 407411.Google Scholar
Hartzler, B. 1996. Crop responses to herbicides. 8th Annu. Integr. Crop Manag. Conf.,. Ames, IA 8: 221225.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. 1995. Effects from postemergence-applied herbicides. Wisconsin Herbicide Injury on Soybean. Bull. #A3703. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 12 p.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. ed. 2001. 2001 Virginia Soybean Production Guide. Blacksburg, VA: VA Coop. Ext. Tidewater Agric. Res. and Ext. Cntr. Info. Ser. No. 408.Google Scholar
Hunt, T. E., Haile, F. J., Hoback, W. W., and Higley, L. G. 1999. Indirect measurement of insect defoliation. Environ. Entomol. 28: 11361139.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 354362.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10: 957962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 1221.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Soybean growth and development as affected by glyphosate and postemergence herbicide tank mixtures. Agron. J. 93: 428434.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., and Delannay, X. et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-resistant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35: 14511461.Google Scholar
Pearce, R. C., Grabau, L. J., Grove, J. H., and Lin, H. 1993. Development of double-crop soybean under different soil water regimes. Agron. J. 85: 576583.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., Thompson, H. E., and Benson, G. O. 1994. How a Soybean Develops? Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. #53. 23 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1997. SAS User's Manual. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual SAS Users Group International Conference; March 22–25, 1998; Nashville, TN. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. pp. 12431246.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Arnold, J. C., Snipes, C. E., Laughlin, David H., and Mills, J. A. 2001. Comparison of glyphosate-resistant and nontransgenic soybean (Glycine max) herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 15: 676685.Google Scholar
Sherman, M. E. 1981. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) Management in Soybeans. . North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 97 p.Google Scholar
Welles, J. M. and Norman, J. M. 1991. Instrument for indirect measurement of canopy architecture. Agron. J. 83: 818825.Google Scholar
Westgate, M. E. 1999. Managing soybeans for photosynthetic efficiency. In Crop, Soil, and Water Management. Chicago, IL: Proceedings of the World Soybean Research Conference VI. pp. 223228.Google Scholar