Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:00:04.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conventional Soybean Plant and Progeny Response to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, 277 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jnorswo@clemson.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine the sensitivity of conventional ‘Motte’ and ‘Pioneer 9831’ soybean to simulated glyphosate drift rates applied during vegetative and reproductive development and the effect of glyphosate on progeny. Glyphosate at 8, 84, and 420 g ae/ha was applied to soybean at the V3, V6, R2, and R5 growth stages. Glyphosate at 8 and 84 g/ha did not reduce soybean plant population, growth, or yield or cause deleterious effects on progeny, regardless of the growth stage at application. Soybean population, growth, and yield were reduced as much as 99 to 100% after application of 420 g/ha glyphosate at the V3 growth stage. Glyphosate at 420 g/ha applied at V6 was less detrimental to soybean compared with the V3 timing. Delaying the application of 420 g/ha glyphosate until R2 and R5 reduced soybean yields 22 to 49% and 43 to 44%, respectively. Soybean injury from 420 g/ha glyphosate was generally transient or less severe when applied at the V6 growth stage or later. However, 420 g/ha glyphosate at R5 (initial podfill) caused a 390 to 450 kg/ha yield reduction compared with the V6 application, which indicated greater soybean vulnerability to glyphosate drift during podfill than in the late-stage vegetative development. Although glyphosate at 420 g/ha was injurious to soybean, regardless of application timing, progeny was not affected.

Keywords

Glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Motte’, ‘Pioneer 9831’Glyphosate toleranceherbicide driftherbicide injuryoff-target movementsoybean injuryspray driftWAE, weeks after emergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 527 - 531
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.)

Footnotes

∗ Technical contribution 4849 from the South Carolina Agriculture and Forestry Research System.

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13:264–270.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Crop Data Management Systems. Web page: http://www.cdms.net. Accessed: January 22, 2003.Google Scholar
Azlin, W. R. and McWhorter, C. G. 1981. Preharvest effects of applying glyphosate to soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:123–127.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:740–745.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E. and McWhorter, C. G. 1977. Toxicity of MSMA, fluometuron, and propanil to soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:101–105.Google Scholar
Cerkauskas, R. F., Dhingra, O. D., Sinclair, J. B., and Foor, S. R. 1982. Effect of three desiccant herbicides on soybean (Glyine max) seed quality. Weed Sci. 30:484–490.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stage of Soybean Development. Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Special Rep. 80. 12 p.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Soybean growth and development as affected by glyphosate and postemergence herbicide tank mixtures. Agron. J 93:428–434.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. 1999. Planting considerations. in Palmer, J., ed. South Carolina Soybean Production Guide. Clemson, SC: Clemson University, Extension Circular 501. Pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
Raymer, P. 2003. Cultural practices. in Raymer, P., ed. 2000 Soybean Production Guide. Web page: http://www.griffin.peachnet.edu/caes/soybeans/03prod/03soyprod.html. Accessed: June 3, 2003.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Agricultural Chemical Usage—2001 Field Crops Summary. July 2002. Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/. Accessed: June 3, 2003.Google Scholar
Weidhamer, J. D., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Sobotka, F. E. 1989. Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J 81:637–643.Google Scholar
Whigham, D. K. and Stoller, E. W. 1979. Soybean dessication by paraquat, glyphosate, and ametryn to accelerate harvest. Agron. J 71:630–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar