Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:02:23.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and Red Morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean with Narrow Rows and Postemergence Herbicide Mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey  and
Paul Raymer
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793, and Georgia Experiment Station, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
Paul Raymer
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793, and Georgia Experiment Station, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tgrey@tifton.cpes.peachnut.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted over 2 yr to evaluate weed control, yield, and net returns of glyphosate-resistant soybean using total postemergence (5 wk) (POST) herbicide systems with glyphosate–isopropylamine (Ipa) or glyphosate–trimethylsulfonium (Tms) alone, tank mixed with fomesafen, or in sequential treatments with bentazon, fomesafen, Ipa, or Tms. Soybean early-season injury ranged from 0 to 28% across the test. Although Ipa did not injure soybean, glyphosate–Tms early postemergence (3 wk) (EPOST) injured soybean from 7 to 17% depending on the rate. Glyphosate–Tms mixed with fomesafen EPOST injured soybean from 20 to 28%. Red morningglory control by Ipa and Tms at 0.8 kg ae/ha was no more than 88%. Sequential applications of Tms or Ipa controlled red morningglory 78% or less. Fomesafen improved red morningglory control by Ipa and Tms. Bentazon did not affect the control of red morningglory by these herbicides. Sicklepod, smooth pigweed, and large crabgrass control was 81, 93, and 79%, respectively, or greater for all herbicide treatments. By midseason, narrow-row soybeans had canopied, and competition from weeds was minimal. Overall, the net returns were reflective of soybean yield, and maximum net returns were recorded for treatments with reduced herbicide inputs. Conversely, sequential application of herbicides as EPOST followed by POST treatments resulted in lower net returns because of increased herbicide and application costs.

Keywords

Bentazonfomesafenglyphosate–isopropylamineglyphosate–trimethylsulfoniumlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. #3 DIGSAred morningglory, Ipomoea coccinea L. # IPOCCsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barnaby # CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrAMACHAmaranthus hybridusCASOBDigitaria sanguinalisDIGSAGlycine maxherbicide-resistant cropsIPOCCIpomoea coccineanet returnsRoundup-Ready® soybeanSenna obtusifoliasoybean injurysoybean yieldsulfosateEPOST, early postemergence (3 wk)fb, followed byIpa, isopropylaminePOST, postemergence (5 wk)Tms, trimethylsulfonium
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 669 - 674
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

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr., and Godley, F. M. 1984. Control of annual morningglories in soybean. Weed Sci. 32: 813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Morningglory and large crabgrass control in glyphosate and 2,4-DB mixtures in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 15: 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14: 19–29.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., B Batts, R., and M Jennings, K. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14: 77–88.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Batts, R. B. 1998. Annual grass control by glyphosate plus bentazon, chlorimuron, fomesafen, or imazethapyr mixtures. Weed Technol. 12: 134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givan, W. D. 2001. Production costs and profit potential. In Raymer, P. L., ed. 2001 Georgia Soybean Production Guide. Athens, GA: Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences. Publication CSS-01-14.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. 2000. Roundup vs. Touchdown. Weed Management and New Archives. Ames, IA: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University: Web page: http://extension.agron.iastate.edu.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Cardina, J., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1994. Dynamics of subeconomic threshold population of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in peanut–cotton–corn rotation. Weed Sci. 42: 364–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Dilbeck, J. S., DeFelice, M. S., and Kendig, J. A. 1998. Weed control with reduced rates of imazaquin and imazethapyr in no-till narrow-row soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46: 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1997. Population dynamics of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in cropping systems in the southeastern coastal plain. Weed Sci. 45: 166–171.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. R., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 354–362.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: 745–749.Google Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45: 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. 2000 Annual Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC: NASS–USDA.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998. Weed control in wide- and narrow-row soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox, imazethapyr, and CGA-277476 plus quizalofop. Weed Technol. 12: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1999. Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate resistant soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 460–465.Google Scholar
Nice, G. R. W., Buehring, N. W., and Shaw, D. R. 2001. Sicklepod response to shading, soybean row spacing, and population in three management systems. Weed Technol. 15: 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Effect of glyphosate on pitted morningglory interference in drilled Roundup-Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 201–202.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 1999. Influence of glyphosate timing, irrigation, and soybean density in drilled soybean on pitted morningglory and hemp sesbania interference. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 168.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Mueller, T. C., and Flinchum, W. T. 1999. Performance of Touchdown 5 and Roundup Ultra applied overtop in glyphosate tolerant soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 52–53.Google Scholar
Staples, J. T. Jr., Murdock, E. C., Keeton, A., Smith, J. D., and Toler, J. E. 1998. Sicklepod and red morningglory control in Roundup Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 5–6.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46: 652–660.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 1999. Weed management with reduced rates of glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15: 771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., E Hart, S., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate and glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 15: 122–128.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5: 169–174.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Young, J. M., Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., Wax, L. M., and Kapusta, G. 2001. Weed management in narrow- and wide-row glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 15: 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar