Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T23:44:22.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean (Glycine max) Tolerance to Simulated Drift of Nicosulfuron and Primisulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John A. Bailey  and
George Kapusta
John A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Southern Ill. Univ., Carbondale, IL 62901
George Kapusta
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Southern Ill. Univ., Carbondale, IL 62901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean response to simulated drift of the corn herbicides nicosulfuron and primisulfuron applied POST at 10 to 50% (3.5 to 17.4 and 4.0 to 20.2 g ai ha−1, respectively) of the total rates at the V3 and R1 growth stages was evaluated in field studies in 1991 and 1992. Primisulfuron reduced soybean height and increased leaf chlorosis, cupping, and necrosis more than nicosulfuron with both applications at all five rates. The symptoms of injury caused by both herbicides often increased linearly with increasing rate. At 50% of label rate, primisulfuron reduced height 75% and decreased yield 58%. Nicosulfuron reduced soybean height as much as 27%, but did not reduce seed yield either year. Height reduction, leaf chlorosis, cupping, and necrosis were correlated with yield loss caused by primisulfuron.

Keywords

Nicosulfuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrinudmyl)anuno]-carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamideprimisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-benzoic acidsoybean Glycine max (L.) Merr., ‘Williams 82’Herbicide drift
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 740 - 745
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Bode, L. E. and McWhorter, C. B. 1977. Toxicity of MSMA, fluometuron, and propanil to soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic Sci. 29:263–281.Google Scholar
3. Elliot, J. G. and Wilson, B. J. 1983. The influence of weather on the efficacy and safety of pesticide application. The drift of herbicides. Occasional Publication Number 3, The British Crop Protection Council. BCPC Publications (Croydon), p. 135.Google Scholar
4. Griffin, J. L. and Habetz, R. J. 1989. Soybean tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1979. Response of cotton to dicamba. Weed. Sci. 27:604–607.Google Scholar
6. Helsel, Z. R., Ratcliff, E., and Rudolph, W. 1987. Maleic hydrazide effects on soybean reproductive development and yield. Agron. J. 79:910–912.Google Scholar
7. Nordby, A. and Skuterud, R. 1975. The effects of boom height, working pressure, and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res. 14:385–395.Google Scholar
8. Regier, C., Dilbeck, R. E., Undersander, D. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 1986. Cotton resistance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid spray drift. Crop Sci. 26:376–377.Google Scholar
9. Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice growth and yield. Weed Sci. 29:303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Smith, D. B., Harris, F. D., and Goering, G. E. 1982. Variables affecting drift from ground boom sprayers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 25:1499–1503.Google Scholar
11. Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5:493–498.Google Scholar
12. Sweetser, P. B., Schow, G. S., and Hutchison, J. M. 1982. Metabolism of chlorsulfuron by plants: biological basis for selectivity of a new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:18–23.Google Scholar
13. Weidenhammer, J. D., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Sobotka, F. E. 1989. Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J. 81:637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar