Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:59:40.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Reduced Rates of Postemergence Herbicides and Cultivation for Broadleaf Weed Control in Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Michael S. Defelice  and
Barry D. Sims
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Michael S. Defelice
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Barry D. Sims
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Missouri, Delta Center, Portageville, MO 63873
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interaction of reduced rates of bentazon, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr with cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans was investigated in field experiments conducted at three sites in Missouri in 1987 and 1988. Single reduced-rate herbicide applications provided soybean yields equal to full rates although visual weed control was slightly lower. Sequential applications of all four herbicides at reduced rates provided weed control and soybean yields equal to full-rate applications. The number of velvetleaf plants m−2 and seeds plant−1 were not influenced by herbicide, herbicide rate, or application timing. Cultivation improved weed control and soybean yield and decreased late-season weed populations and seed production.

Keywords

Bentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxidechlorimuron, 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 acidimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro - 4 - methyl - 4 -(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidsoybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Williams 82’, ‘Fayette’, and ‘Asgrow 5474’BentazonchlorimuronimazaquinimazethapyrLISAtrifluralinweed seedsweed biologysoybeanscommon cockleburXanthium strumarium L. # XANST; velvetleafAbutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTH
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 1990 , pp. 541 - 545
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. Baldwin, F. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1985. A reduced rate, intensive management soybean weed control program. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:487.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C. and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12:109–112.Google Scholar
4. 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 below-label rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365–374.Google Scholar
5. Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, K. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:224–228.Google Scholar
6. Edmund, R. M. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Factors affecting postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025; spray volume, growth stage, and soil-applied alachlor and vernolate. Weed Sci. 35:216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Edwards, C. A. 1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 2:148–152.Google Scholar
8. Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
9. Gebhardt, M. R. and Minor, H. C. 1983. Soybean production systems for claypan soils. Agron. J. 75:532–537.Google Scholar
10. Hagood, E. S. Jr., Bauman, T. T., Williams, J. L. Jr., and Schreiber, M. M. 1980. Growth analysis of soybeans (Glycine max) in competition with velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 28:729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci. 30:520–526.Google Scholar
12. McWhorter, C. G. and Anderson, J. M. 1976. Bentazon applied postemergence for economical control of common cocklebur in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:391–396.Google Scholar
13. Miller, S. D. and Alley, H. P. 1987. Weed control and rotational crop response with AC 222,293. Weed Technol. 1:29–33.Google Scholar
14. Murphy, T. R. and Gossett, B. J. 1981. Influence of shading by soybeans (Glycine max) on weed suppression. Weed Sci. 29:610–615.Google Scholar
15. Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
16. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.Google Scholar
17. Ritter, R. L. and Coble, H. D. 1984. Influence of crop canopy, weed maturity, and rainfall on acifluorfen activity. Weed Sci. 32:185–190.Google Scholar
18. Smith, C. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1988. Effects of cultivation timing on chemical control of sicklepod in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:54.Google Scholar
19. Wax, L. M., Nave, W. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide row soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:73–78.Google Scholar
20. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.Google Scholar