Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:22:57.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Control with Reduced Rates of Chlorimuron Plus Metribuzin and Imazethapyr in No-Till Narrow-Row Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65203
Jeffrey S. Dilbeck
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65203
Michael S. Defelice
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65203
J. Andrew Kendig
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65203

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at three locations in 1993 and 1994 to evaluate weed control and crop response to combinations of glyphosate, metolachlor, 0.5 X and 1 X label rates of chlorimuron plus metribuzin applied prior to planting (PP), and 0.5 X and 1 X label rates of imazethapyr applied early postemergence (EPOST) or postemergence (POST) in no-till narrow-row soybean production. Giant foxtail densities were reduced with sequential PP followed by (fb) EPOST or POST treatments. Large crabgrass was reduced equivalently with all herbicide combinations involving chlorimuron plus metribuzin PP fb imazethapyr. Common cocklebur control was variable but was usually greater with treatments that included imazethapyr. Ivyleaf morningglory densities were not reduced with any herbicide combinations. Sequential PP fb EPOST or POST treatments tended to provide slightly better weed suppression than PP-only treatments, but the difference was rarely significant. Soybean yields with treatments utilizing 0.5 X rates were usually equal to 1 X rates.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Buhler, D. D., Gonsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84: 973978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gonsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (<i>Xanthium strumarium</i>) control in soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) with reduced rates of bentazon and cultivation. Weed Sci. 41:447453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., 1979. Soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27:562565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12:109112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B., and DeFelice, M. S. 1991. Timing of chlorimuron and imazaquin application in no-till soybeans (<i>Glycine max</i>). Weed Sci. 39:232237.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 (<i>Glycine max</i>) with below-label rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddox, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (<i>Glycine max</i>). Weed Technol. 5: 834840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C. A., 1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 2:148152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M., 1991. Maximizing herbicide efficiency with mixtures and expert systems. Weed Technol. 5:894897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, O. W., and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) row spacing on pitted morningglory (<i>Ipomoea lacunosa</i>) interference. Weed Sci. 35:185193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B., and Kendig, A. 1997. Weed Control Guide for Missouri Field Crops. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Cooperative Extension Service Bull. MP-575. 89 p.Google Scholar
Murphey, T. R., and Gossett, B. J. 1981. Influence of shading by soybeans (<i>Glycine max</i>) on weed suppression. Weed Sci. 29:610615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muyonga, C. M., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1996. Weed control with reduced rates of four soil applied soybean herbicides. Weed Sci. 44:148155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. J., Gebhart, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacing, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 14:285289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, E. P., and Meade, J. A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (<i>Glycine max</i>). Weed Technol. 7:365369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. p. 287.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (<i>Glycine max</i>). Weed Sci. 38:541545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39:195199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Missouri Farm Facts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. 86 p.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Nave, W. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide row soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:7377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westburg, D. E., Oliver, L. R., and Frans, R. E. 1989. Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:678685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar