Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:49:37.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annual Weed Control by Glyphosate in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Comfort M. Ateh  and
Robert G. Harvey
Comfort M. Ateh*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Robert G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author: C. M. Ateh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of natural infestations of common lambsquarters and giant foxtail in 1993, 1994, and 1995 and of velvetleaf in 1994 and 1995 by postemergence application of glyphosate to glyphosate-resistant soybean planted in narrow (20 cm) and wide (76 cm) rows was evaluated. Planting glyphosate-resistant soybean in narrow rows and applying reduced rates of glyphosate when common lambsquarters, giant foxtail, and velvetleaf were at their actively growing stage 3 to 18 cm, 5 to 28 cm, and 3 to 20 cm tall, respectively, resulted in > 90% control. The effect of time of herbicide application was greater than the rate of herbicide application, especially within the wide-row soybean plantings. Applying imazethapyr in combination with glyphosate did not improve weed control or soybean yield compared with glyphosate alone.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. #ABUTHcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.♯ CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAHerbicide-resistant cropgenetically engineered cropRoundup Ready soybeanABUTHCHEALSETFADAP, days after plantingDAPOE, days after postemergence treatmentGRS, glyphosate-resistant soybeanPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 394 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Footnotes

Current address of first author: Department of Vegetable Crops, 124 Robbins Hall, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

References

Literature Cited

Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1995. Determining yield effects of soybean injury from postemergence herbicides. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:135.Google Scholar
Baldwin, F. L. 1996. Weed control in Roundup tolerant soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:46.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Werling, V. L. 1989. Weed control from imazaquin and metolachlor in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:392–399.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., Beighley, D. H., et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of glyphosate-tolerant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35:1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derting, C. W., Dixon, G. A., Rahn, P. R., Raymond, J. R., Coble, H. D., Murdock, E. C., and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Herbicide and row spacing influences on weed control and yields of Roundup Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:203.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D., Doersch, R., Proost, R., and Kivlin, P. 1992. Reduced Herbicide Rates: Aspects to Consider. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension. Bull. A3563. 8 p.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E. 1985. Discovery, development and chemistry of glyphosate. In Gossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Thetford, Norfolk: Butterworth and Co. Ltd. pp 3–17.Google Scholar
Haslam, E. 1993. Shikimic Acid: Metabolism and Metabolites. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. 387 p.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1994. Annual weed control with glyphosate at several rates, weed sizes, and spray volumes. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:124.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, J., Barry, G., and Kishore, G. 1989. The herbicide glyphosate. Biofactors 2:17–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Mousdale, D. M. and Coggins, J. R. 1991. Amino acid synthesis. In Kirkwood, R. C., ed. Target Sites for Herbicide Action. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulegata, M. and Boerboom, C. M. 1996. Critical period of weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean systems. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:130.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1989. Factors affecting herbicide rate. In Pascale, A. J., ed. Soybean Strategies for Reduced Herbicide Rates. Volume 4. Buenos Aires, Argentina: World Soybean Research Conf. pp. 1613–1619.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35:1451–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. C., Shaw, D. R., and Baughman, T. A. 1995. Influence of row spacing on glyphosate efficacy in GTS soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 35:289.Google Scholar
Sprankle, P. L., Parker, W. P., Miller, K. J., and Wells, B. H. 1994. Weed control with Roundup Ready soybean in wide and narrow rows. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:125.Google Scholar