Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:46:33.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control from Imazaquin and Metolachlor in No-till Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas D. Buhler  and
Virginia L. Werling
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Virginia L. Werling
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1985, when weed densities were low (169 plants/m2 in untreated control), imazaquin applied at 0.07 kg ai/ha early preplant controlled over 90% of all weeds before no-till planting of soybeans. In 1986 and 1987 when weed densities were higher (589 plants/m2 in untreated control), addition of 1.1 kg ai/ha or more of metolachlor to imazaquin (0.07 kg/ha) before soybean planting controlled 95% or more of the grass weeds and 83% or more of the broadleaf weeds. Imazaquin plus metolachlor applied less than 1 day after soybean planting controlled less than 70% of the emerged weeds in 1986 and 1987; common lambsquarters was most tolerant. Early preplant treatments controlled more weeds throughout the growing season than treatments applied after planting. Splitting herbicide treatments among application times generally did not increase weed control compared to single applications. Early preplant applications resulted in higher soybean densities and taller soybeans 30 days after planting in 1986 and 1987 than treatments applied after planting. Soybean yields increased as weed control increased. Weed control and soybean yields were greater with early preplant treatments than paraquat plus alachlor plus metribuzin applied preemergence in 1986 and 1987. No carryover of imazaquin residue was detected through corn bioassay in the field.

Keywords

Alachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetainideimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidmetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidemetribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-oneparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ioncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯3 CHEAL;: corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3747′soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Conservation tillageearly preplantherbicide carryoverAbutilon theophrasti MedikAmaranthus retroflexus L.Chenopodium album L.Polygonum persicaria L.Setaria faberi HerrmABUTHAMARECHEALPOLPESETFA

Information

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 1989 , pp. 392 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.Google Scholar
2. Buhler, D. D. 1985. Early preplant and split herbicide applications for weed control in no-till and reduced tillage corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 49:48.Google Scholar
3. Gunsolus, J. L., Behrens, R., Lueschen, W. E., Warnes, D. D., and Wiersma, J. V. 1986. Carryover potential of AC-263,499, DPX-F6025, FMC-57020, and imazaquin in Minnesota. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:52.Google Scholar
4. Hartwig, R. O. and Laflen, J. M. 1978. A meterstick method for measuring crop residue cover. J. Soil Water Conserv. 33:90–91.Google Scholar
5. Harvey, R. G., Albright, J. W., and Parker, W. B. 1984. No-till soybean weed control study. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:97–101.Google Scholar
6. Kells, J. J. 1984. Early preplant herbicide applications in no-till corn and soybeans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 39:42–43.Google Scholar
7. Koshkinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 41:365–370.Google Scholar
8. Mester, T. C. and Buhler, D. D. 1986. Effects of tillage on the depth of giant foxtail germination and population densities. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41:4.Google Scholar
9. Nowak, P. J. 1983. Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 38:162–165.Google Scholar
10. Paxman, R., Annad, A. M., Lee, S. C., Orwick, P. L., and Peoples, T. R. 1985. The imidazolinone herbicides. Proc. New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conf. 38:73–77.Google Scholar
11. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 pp.Google Scholar
13. Stougaard, R. N., Kapusta, G., and Roskamp, G. 1984. Early preplant applications for no-till soybean (Glycine max) weed control. Weed Sci. 32:293–298.Google Scholar
14. Walls, F. R. Jr., Worsham, A. D., Collins, W. K., Corbin, F. T., and Bradley, J. R. 1987. Evaluation of imazaquin for weed control in flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Weed Sci. 35:824–829.Google Scholar
15. Werling, V. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1988. Influence of application time on clomazone activity in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 36:629–635.Google Scholar