Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T01:37:43.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivar Tolerance to Chlorimuron and Imazaquin with Varying Hydroponic Solution pH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Larry J. Newsom  and
David R. Shaw
Larry J. Newsom
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. Weed Sci., Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. Weed Sci., Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twenty determinate soybean cultivars were grown in hydroponic solutions to determine differential tolerance to chlorimuron and imazaquin at pH 6, 7, or 8. ‘Epps' exhibited tolerance to chlorimuron at each pH, and to imazaquin except at pH 8. ‘9641 Pioneer’ was highly sensitive to both herbicides at each pH, and ‘Asgrow 5979’ was sensitive to chlorimuron, and to imazaquin except at pH 7. ‘Hutcheson’ was sensitive to chlorimuron at each pH, and imazaquin at pH 6. ‘Asgrow 6785’ was sensitive to chlorimuron at pH 6 and 8, with shoot weight reductions of 31 and 28%, respectively, and ‘Coker 686’ was similarly sensitive at pH 6 and 7. ‘Hartz 6200’ was tolerant to imazaquin at pH 6 and 7, ‘Hartz 6686’ was tolerant at pH 6 and 8, and Coker 686 was tolerant at pH 7 and 8. Coker 686 and 'Sharkey’ were tolerant to chlorimuron at some pH levels, though highly sensitive at other pH levels. ‘Asgrow 5403’ and Coker 686 also had varying tolerance and sensitivity to imazaquin across pH levels. Shoot length and shoot weight were the best indicators of differential cultivar sensitivity when compared with previous field studies.

Keywords

Chlorimuron, 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicideinjuryhydroponicvariety
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 382 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Hartwig, E. E. 1976. Screening soybeans for tolerance to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:351–353.Google Scholar
2. Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1988. Chapter 3: Sulfonylurea herbicides, p. 117–189 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds., Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action, Vol. 3. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York.Google Scholar
3. Borggaard, O. K. and Streibig, J. C. 1988. Chlorosulfuron adsorption by humic acid, iron oxides, and montmorillonite. Weed Sci. 36:530–534.Google Scholar
4. Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29:263–281.Google Scholar
5. Bugbee, B. G. and Salisbury, F. B. 1985. An evaluation of MES [2(N-morpolino)ethanesulfonic acid] and amberlite IRC-50 as pH buffers for nutrient solution studies. J. Plant Nutr. 8:567–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Congleton, W. F., Vancantfort, A. M., and Lignowski, E. M. 1987. Imazaquin (Scepter)®: A new soybean herbicide. Weed Technol. 1:186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ferguson, W. J., Branschweiger, K. I., Braunschweiger, W. R., Smith, J. R., McCormick, J. J., Wasman, C. C., Jarvis, N. P., Bell, D. H., and Good, N. C. 1980. Hydrogen ion buffers for biological research. Anal. Biochem. 104:300–310.Google Scholar
8. Fredrickson, D. R. and Shea, P. J. 1986. Effect of soil pH on degradation, movement, and plant uptake of chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 34:328–332.Google Scholar
9. Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.Google Scholar
10. Green, J. M., Obrigawitch, T. T., Long, J. D., and Hutcheson, J. M. 1988. Metribuzin and chlorimuron mixtures for preemergence broadleaf weed control in soybeans, Glycine max . Weed Technol. 2:355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Griffin, J. L. and Habetz, R. J. 1989. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hackett, N. 1990. Imazaquin behavior in the soil. American Cyanamid Co. Pub. PE 12121. American Cyanamid Co., Wayne, NJ.Google Scholar
13. Hayes, R. M. and Wax, L. M. 1975. Differential interspecific response of soybean cultivars to bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:516–521.Google Scholar
14. Imsande, J. and Ralston, E. J. 1981. Hydroponic growth and nondestructive assay for dinitrogen fixation. Plant Physiol. 68:1380–1384.Google Scholar
15. Kent, L. M. L., Barrentine, W. L., and Wills, G. D. 1988. Response of twenty determinate soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to imazaquin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:50.Google Scholar
16. Martin, D. M., Worthington, J. P., and Gray, E. 1987. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar response to fluchloralin, metribuzin, and vernolate. Weed Technol. 1:282–285.Google Scholar
17. Miyaska, S. C., Chechai, R. T., Grunes, D. L., and Norvell, W. A. 1988. Methods for controlling pH in hydroponic culture of winter wheat forage. Agron. J. 80:213–220.Google Scholar
18. Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar response to chlorimuron and imazaquin as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Technol. 6:(in press).Google Scholar
19. Nobel, P. S. and Berry, W. L. 1985. Element responses of agaves. Am. J. Bot. 72:686–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Pomeranke, G. J. and Nickell, C. D. 1988. Inheritance of chlorimuron ethyl sensitivity in the soybean strains BSR 101 and M74-462. Crop Sci. 28:59–60.Google Scholar
21. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
22. Rys, G. J. and Phung, T. 1985. Nutrient solution pH control using dipolar buffers in studies of Trifolium repens L. nitrogen nutrition. J. Exp. Bot 36:426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Shaner, D. L. 1989. Factors affecting soil and foliar bioavailability of imidazolinones. American Cyanamid Co. Pub. FHT-D269-2M-8902. American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
24. Siraj-Ali, M. S., Peterson, J. C., and Tayama, H. K. 1987. Influence of nutrient solution pH on the uptake of plant nutrients and growth of Chrysanthemum morifolium ‘Bright Golden Anne’ in hydroponic culture. J. Plant Nutr. 10:2161–2168.Google Scholar
25. Smith, R. J. Jr. and Caviness, C. E. 1973. Differential responses of soybean cultivars to propanil. Weed Sci. 21:279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Tripp, T. N. and Baldwin, F. L. 1988. Effects of excessive precipitation on soybean injury from imazaquin and chlorimuron. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 28:39.Google Scholar
27. Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayes, R. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron, and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Wehtje, G., Dickens, R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hajek, B. F. 1987. Sorption and mobility of sulfometuron and imazapyr in five Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 35:858–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Wiese, A. F., Wood, M. L., and Chenault, E. W. 1988. Persistence of sulfonylureas in Pullman clay loam. Weed Technol. 2:251–256.Google Scholar
30. Willard, T. S. and Griffin, J. L. 1989. Soybean tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:38.Google Scholar
31. Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Differential soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 5:430–433.Google Scholar