Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T08:38:34.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Row Spacing and Residual Herbicides on Weed Control in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Justin L. Norris ,
David R. Shaw  and
Charles E. Snipes
Justin L. Norris
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry and Experiment Station, Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dshaw@weedscience.msstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1998 and 1999 at two locations in Mississippi to determine weed control efficacy of postemergence soybean herbicides alone or following pendimethalin + imazaquin preemergence in glufosinate-tolerant soybean planted in 38- or 76-cm rows. Glufosinate applications controlled pitted morningglory better than conventional herbicide treatments, regardless of row spacing. Pendimethalin + imazaquin did not increase the efficacy of glufosinate on pitted morningglory. Pitted morningglory control was increased in narrow rows when compared to wide rows with all treatments. Sicklepod control ranged from 90 to 100% in narrow rows with glufosinate, regardless of rate. Residual herbicides alone controlled sicklepod 54%, regardless of row spacing. With grass species, two applications of 420 g ai/ha glufosinate controlled weeds 82 to 100%. Residual herbicides followed by 420 g/ha glufosinate controlled grass species 80% or more, regardless of row spacing. Hemp sesbania control ranged from 80 to 92% in 76- and 38-cm rows with one application of 560 g/ha glufosinate. Glufosinate at 420 g/ha used as sequential applications controlled hemp sesbania better than the conventional treatment in 76-cm rows. Residual herbicides in combination with glufosinate did not increase hemp sesbania control. There were no differences in yield due to row spacing at Stoneville in either year due to extremely dry growing conditions during pod set. At Starkville, two applications of 420 g/ha glufosinate resulted in higher yields than pendimethalin + imazaquin followed by 420 g/ha glufosinate in both years. Pendimethalin + imazaquin followed by 420 g/ha glufosinate increased yield in narrow rows compared to wide rows at Starkville in 1998.

Keywords

Glufosinateimazaquinpendimethalinhemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Rydb. ex. A. W. Hill #3 SEBEXpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barnaby # CASOBsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrGlufosinate-tolerant soybeanPOST, postemergencePOST-3, POST application 3 wk after plantingPOST-5, POST application 5 wk after plantingPRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 319 - 325
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

Askew, S. D., Shaw, D. R., and Arnold, J. C. 1997. Weed control in Liberty-Link soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:59.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-till soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earnest, L. D., Webster, E. P., and Hooks, G. G. 1998. Systems for weed control in Liberty tolerant corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:261.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. 251–291.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control with non-selective herbicides. Weed Technol. 5: 884–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinchee, M. A. W., Padgette, S. R., Kishore, G. M., Delannay, X., and Fraley, R. T. 1993. Herbicide-tolerant crops. In Kung, S. and Wu, R., eds. Transgenic Plants. Volume 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Non-selective and selective herbicide combinations in stale seedbed soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9: 158–165.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8: 17–22.Google Scholar
Lyon, B. R. 1991. Engineering microbial herbicide detoxification genes in higher plants. In Dennis, E. S. and Llewellyn, D. J., eds. Molecular Approaches to Crop Improvement. Wien, Germany: Springer-Verlag. pp. 79–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankula, S., Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. 1997. Glufosinate-resistant, BAR-transformed rice (Oryza sativa) and red rice (Oryza sativa) response to glufosinate alone and in mixtures. Weed Technol. 11: 662–666.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. V., Harvey, R. G., VanGessel, M. J., Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. 1999. Efficacy and crop response to glufosinate-based weed management in PAT-transformed sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 104–111.Google Scholar
Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M., and Byth, D. E. 1996. Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58: 99–102.Google Scholar
Wells, R. J., Burton, J. W., and Kilen, T. C. 1993. Soybean growth and light interception: response to differing leaf and stem morphology. Crop Sci. 33: 520–524.Google Scholar
Wendler, C., Barniski, M., and Wild, A. 1990. Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and photorespiration of C3 and C4 plants. Photosyn. Res. 24: 55–61.Google Scholar
Wheeler, C. C., Baldwin, F. L., Talbert, R. E., and Webster, E. P. 1998. Weed control in glufosinate-tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:34.Google Scholar
Wild, A. and Wendler, C. 1991. Effect of glufosinate (phosphinothricin) on amino acid content, photorespiration, and photosynthesis. Pestic. Sci. 30: 422–424.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0024, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33: 531–536.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 169–174.Google Scholar