Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T13:50:14.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Redvine (Brunnichia ovata) and Trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) Management in Glufosinate- and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Krishna N. Reddy*
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Demosthenis Chachalis
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kreddy@ars.usda.gov

Abstract

Three field studies were conducted during 1998 to 2002 at Stoneville, MS, to examine the efficacy of glufosinate and glyphosate on redvine and trumpetcreeper control in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean. Glyphosate at 2.52 kg ae/ha applied approximately 3 wk before planting soybean reduced trumpetcreeper density (45 to 52%) but not redvine compared with no glyphosate in both glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean. However, glyphosate applied preplant reduced biomass of both species in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Glyphosate early postemergence (EPOST) followed by (fb) late postemergence (LPOST) had no effect on redvine density but reduced trumpetcreeper density (70%) compared with the no-herbicide control. There were no differences in densities and biomass of redvine and trumpetcreeper and soybean yield among isopropylamine, diammonium, and aminomethanamide dihydrogen tetraoxosulfate salts of glyphosate. Overall, trumpetcreeper is more susceptible to glyphosate than redvine. Glufosinate EPOST with or without acifluorfen or glufosinate EPOST fb LPOST had no effect on densities of redvine and trumpetcreeper but reduced biomass 45 to 76% and 35 to 58%, respectively, compared with the nontreated control. These results show that glyphosate preplant and POST in-crop applications can reduce trumpetcreeper density but not redvine, and glufosinate POST applications can suppress growth of both species.

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

Anonymous. 2004a. Labels. FMC Corporation: Web page: http://cropsolutions.fmc.com/Crop_Solutions/Labels/. Accessed: May 18, 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004b. Labels. Valent USA Corporation: Web page: http://www.valent.com/ag/aghome.asp?industry=2. Accessed: May 18, 2004.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D. and Reddy, K. N. 2000a. Factors affecting Campsis radicans seed germination and seedling emergence. Weed Sci. 48:212216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D. and Reddy, K. N. 2000b. Redvine (Brunnichia ovata) and trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) response to glyphosate and glufosinate mixtures with other POST herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:234.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D. and Reddy, K. N. 2004. Pelargonic acid and rainfall effects on glyphosate activity in trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans). Weed Technol. 18:6672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., and Elmore, C. D. 2001. Characterization of leaf surface, wax composition, and control of redvine and trumpetcreeper with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 49:156163.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S. and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Redvine and trumpetcreeper control in soybeans and grain sorghum. Ark. Farm Res 29:5.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. T. and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Interference and control of trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) in soybean. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc 54:130131.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1984. Perennial Vines in the Delta of Mississippi. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Station Bull. 927. 9 p.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D., Heatherly, L. G., and Wesley, R. A. 1989. Perennial vine control in multiple cropping systems on a clay soil. Weed Technol. 3:282287.Google Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1995. Redvine Control in No-Till Soybeans with and without Irrigation. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bull. 1021. 7 p.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Young, B. G. 2001. Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to trimethylsulfonium and isopropylamine salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:745749.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2000. Factors affecting toxicity, absorption, and translocation of glyphosate in redvine (Brunnichia ovata). Weed Technol. 14:457462.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Zablotowicz, R. M. 2003. Glyphosate-resistant soybean response to various salts of glyphosate and glyphosate accumulation in soybean nodules. Weed Sci. 51:496502.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. Software Version 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Mack, R. E. 1991. Application timing of herbicides for the control of redvine (Brunnichia ovata). Weed Technol. 5:125129.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Mack, R. E., and Smith, C. A. 1991. Redvine (Brunnichia ovata) germination and emergence. Weed Sci. 39:3336.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states, grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc 53:247274.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc 54:244259.Google Scholar
Younce, M. H. and Skroch, W. A. 1989. Control of selected perennial weeds with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 37:360364.Google Scholar