Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:13:29.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox and imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kelly A. Nelson ,
Karen A. Renner  and
Donald Penner
Kelly A. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted in 1995 and 1996 to determine soybean injury and weed control differences from imazamox and imazethapyr applied postemergence with a nonionic surfactant or methylated seed oil and with selected tank mixtures. Soybean injury from imazamox at 35 g ai ha−1 plus either a methylated seed oil or nonionic surfactant was equal to injury from imazethapyr at 70 g ai ha−1 in the greenhouse and field. Imazamox provided greater common lambsquarters control than imazethapyr in the field in 1995 and in the greenhouse. Thifensulfuron tank mixed with imazethapyr increased common lambsquarters control, while soybean response increased when thifensulfuron was tank mixed with imazamox. Common ragweed dry weight was reduced 61 to 64% from 35 g ha−1 imazamox and 70 g ha−1 imazethapyr in the field; however, imazamox provided greater common ragweed control than imazethapyr in the greenhouse. Tank mixtures of lactofen with imazamox or imazethapyr increased common ragweed control and resulted in greater soybean seed yield in 1996 than when imazamox and imazethapyr were applied alone; however, lactofen antagonized giant foxtail control with imazamox and imazethapyr, and antagonized common lambsquarters control with imazamox. Giant foxtail control in the greenhouse was antagonized more when acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen were tank mixed with 35 g ha−1 imazethapyr than with 35 g ha−1 imazamox. Giant foxtail control with imazamox or imazethapyr applied alone or with diphenyl ether herbicides increased when 28% urea ammonium nitrate was added with nonionic surfactant compared with nonionic surfactant only. Imazethapyr antagonized giant foxtail control by clethodim in the field and was more antagonistic than imazamox in the greenhouse. A methylated seed oil improved common ragweed control by imazethapyr at 70 g ha−1 and imazamox at 18 and 35 g ha−1, while common lambsquarters and velvetleaf control increased when a methylated seed oil was included with 18 g ha−1 imazethapyr compared to nonionic surfactant in the greenhouse.

Keywords

Acifluorfenclethodimfomesafenimazamoximazethapyrlactofenthifensulfuroncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Conrad.'Adjuvantantagonismherbicide interactiontank mixtureABUTHAMBELCHEALSETFA

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , October 1998 , pp. 587 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1995. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazethapyr in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci. 43: 572–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballard, T. O., Foley, M. E., and Bauman, T. T. 1996. Response of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) to postemergence imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 44: 248–251.Google Scholar
Ballard, T. O. and Hellmer, M. 1995. AC 299,263: efficacy in soybeans as influenced by postemergence timing. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 132–133.Google Scholar
Busse, S. R. and Hartberg, T. J. 1994. Weed control and rotational crop response with AC 299,263 in soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 132.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max) . Weed Technol. 3: 596–601.Google Scholar
Chao, J. F., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1993. Effects of imazamethabenz on the main shoot growth and tillering of wild oat (Avena fatua L). J. Plant Growth Regul. 12: 141–147.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15: 20–22.Google Scholar
Croon, K. A. and Merkle, M. G. 1988. Effects of bentazon, imazaquin, or chlorimuron on haloxyfop or fluazifop-P efficacy. Weed Technol. 2: 36–40.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Witt, H. L. 1993. Effects of methylated crop oils and other selected adjuvants on the herbicidal efficacy and selectivity of imazethapyr in soybeans. Pest. Sci. 38: 260–262.Google Scholar
Gaeddert, J. W., Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. 1996. Control and cross resistance of an ALS resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) biotype. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36: 9.Google Scholar
Gednalski, J. V., Johnson, W. G., and Alley, G. W. 1995. Influence of various adjuvants on postemergence weed control in soybeans with AC 299,263. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 133.Google Scholar
Gerwick, B. C., Tanguay, L. D., and Burroughs, F. G. 1990. Differential effects of UAN on antagonism with bentazon. Weed Technol. 4: 620–624.Google Scholar
Godley, J. L. and Kitchen, L. M. 1986. Interaction of acifluorfen with fluazifop for annual grass control. Weed Sci. 34: 936–941.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1991. Maximizing herbicide efficiency with mixtures and expert systems. Weed Technol. 5: 894–897.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Jourdan, S. W., Wyse, D. L., Somers, D. A., and Magnusson, M. U. 1993. Effect of ammonium sulfate on absorption of imazethapyr by quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and maize (Zea mays) cell suspension cultures. Weed Sci. 41: 325–334.Google Scholar
Hager, A. and Renner, K. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank-mixes. Weed Technol. 8: 766–771.Google Scholar
Hart, R., Lignowski, E., and Taylor, F. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. Pages 247-256 in Shaner, D. L. and S. O'Connor, L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1992. Influence of adjuvants on the efficacy, absorption, and spray retention of primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6: 592–598.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1: 1–63.Google Scholar
Herman, J. C., ed. 1985. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. 53. 20 p.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. and Coble, H. D. 1990. Compatibility of sethoxydim with five postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 128–133.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberii with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10: 26–29.Google Scholar
Leif, J. and Taylor, F. 1993. Sequential and tank mix combinations with imazethapyr for enhanced weed control and weed resistance management in soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 81.Google Scholar
Little, D. L. and Shaner, D. L. 1991. Absorption and translocation of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 53-69 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E., Getting, J. K., and Foland, E. L. 1997. AC 299,263 and imazethapyr carryover potential in soybean/sugarbeet rotation. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37: 97.Google Scholar
Minton, B. W., Kurtz, M. E., and Shaw, D. R. 1989. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with grass and broadleaf weed herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 37: 223–227.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with chlorimuron plus acifluorfen or thifensulfuron mixtures. Weed Technol. 7: 317–321.Google Scholar
Myers, P. F. and Coble, H. D. 1992. Antagonism of graminicide activity on annual grass species by imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6: 333–338.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Palczynski, J., and Manthey, F. 1990. Imazethapyr efficacy with adjuvants and environments. Weed Technol. 4: 765–770.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Weed control in wide- and narrow-row soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox, imazethapyr, and oxasulfuron plus quizalofop. Weed Technol. 12: 137–144.Google Scholar
Ogg, P. J., Arnold, T. L., Busse, S. R., et al. 1988. Methylated sunflower oil and other additives in postemergence applications of imazethapyr. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 41.Google Scholar
Penner, D. 1989. The impact of adjuvants on herbicide antagonism. Weed Technol. 3: 227–231.Google Scholar
Putnam, A. R. and Penner, D. 1974. Pesticide interactions in higher plants. Residue Rev. 50: 73–110.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. M. and Stoller, E. W. 1996. Thifensulfuron and imazethapyr interaction at the ALS enzyme in sulfonylurea-tolerant soybean (Glycine max) . Weed Sci. 44: 763–768.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone–acetohydroxy acid synthase interactions. Pages 71-90 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. M., Nissen, S. J., and Masters, R. A. 1996. Adjuvant effects on imazethapyr, 2,4-D and picloram absorption by leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) . Weed Sci. 44: 469–475.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. 1989. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 455–458.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1989. The basis of bentazon antagonism on sethoxydim absorption and activity. Weed Sci. 37: 400–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westberg, D. E. and Coble, H. D. 1992. Effect of acifluorfen on the absorption, translocation, and metabolism of chlorimuron in certain weeds. Weed Technol. 6: 4–12.Google Scholar
Whitwell, T., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and McGuire, J. A. 1985. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with postemergence grass herbicides applied alone and in mixtures. Weed Sci. 33: 673–678.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Tropic Croton (Crown glandulosus) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 5: 795–798.Google Scholar