Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:55:37.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean (Glycine max) Response to Foliar Applications of Mesotrione

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bryan G. Young ,
Julie M. Young  and
Joseph L. Matthews
Bryan G. Young*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and General Agriculture, Center for Excellence in Soybean Research, Teaching, and Outreach, Southern Illinois University, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
Julie M. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and General Agriculture, Center for Excellence in Soybean Research, Teaching, and Outreach, Southern Illinois University, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
Joseph L. Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and General Agriculture, Center for Excellence in Soybean Research, Teaching, and Outreach, Southern Illinois University, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bgyoung@stu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate soybean injury and yield reduction from foliar applications of mesotrione. Mesotrione was applied at 1.1, 3.2, 11, 35, and 105 g ai/ha to ‘BT 386C’ soybeans at the V1 stage of growth. All rates of mesotrione resulted in visual injury to soybean at 7 and 14 d after treatment (DAT). Overall soybean injury from mesotrione was greatest at 14 DAT, with 25 to 78% injury observed. By 28 DAT, soybean injury was 31 and 66% from mesotrione at 35 and 105 g/ha, respectively, and less than 10% from mesotrione at 1.1, 3.2, and 11 g/ha. Soybean yield was reduced 11 and 22% by mesotrione at 35 and 105 g/ha, respectively. No reduction in soybean yield was observed from mesotrione at rates up to 11 g/ha. Regression analysis indicated that soybean injury from mesotrione at 28 DAT was the best predictor of yield loss (r 2 = 0.77), compared with injury evaluations at 7, 14, and 56 DAT. Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine whether soybean injury from mesotrione was affected by soybean growth stage and variety. Soybean varieties BT 386C, ‘Asgrow 4602RR’, ‘Pioneer 94B01’, and ‘LS 930375’ were more sensitive to mesotrione at the VC growth stage than at the V1 and V2 stages. At the V2 stage, Asgrow 4602RR was three to five times more sensitive to mesotrione than the other three varieties.

Keywords

Mesotrionesoybean, Glycine max L. (Merr.) ‘Asgrow 4602RR’, ‘BT 386C’, ‘LS 930375’, ‘Pioneer 94B01’Herbicide drifttank contaminationDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 651 - 654
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

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. 2001. Callisto™ Product Label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection.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
Behrens, R. and Lueschen, W. E. 1979. Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci. 27:486–493.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. G. and Wilson, B. J. 1983. The Influence of Weather on the Efficiency and Safety of Pesticide Application—The Drift of Herbicides. Craydon, U.K.: The British Crop Protection Council, Occasional Publication No. 3. 135 p.Google Scholar
Lee, D. L., Prisbylla, M. P., Cromartie, T. H., Dagarin, D. P., Howard, S. W., Provan, W. M., Ellis, M. K., Fraser, T., and Mutter, L. C. 1997. The discovery and structural requirements of inhibitors of p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Weed Sci. 45:601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallett, K. E., Little, J. P., Sheekey, M., and Veerasekaran, P. 1998. The mode of action of isoxaflutole: I. Physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 62:113–124.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O., Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999. Statistical tests for hormesis and effective dosages in herbicide dose response. Agron. J. 91:713–721.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S. A., Wax, L. M., and Nelson, R. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 15:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M., Knuth, L. A., and Slife, F. W. 1969. Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci. 17:388–393.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bernard, R. L. 1976. Differential response of soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:484–486.Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, J. D., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Sobotka, F. E. 1989. Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J. 81:637–643.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bartlett, D. W., and Towson, J. K. 1999. Mode of action, absorption, translocation and metabolism of mesotrione in weeds and corn. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 54:94–95.Google Scholar