Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:20:26.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis) Postemergence Control in Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradley E. Fronning  and
George Kegode
Bradley E. Fronning
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
George Kegode*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biennial wormwood has become an important weed for soybean producers in the northern Great Plains states of the United States. Research was conducted at Fargo, Leonard, and Wyndmere, ND, in 2000 and 2001 to evaluate postemergence control of biennial wormwood in soybean. Biennial wormwood densities at Fargo, Leonard, and Wyndmere were 290, 290, and 130 plants/m2 in 2000 and 22, 670, and 88 plants/m2 in 2001, respectively. Across years, biennial wormwood control with postemergence herbicides 4 wk after treatment was 81 to 97% at Fargo, 5 to 89% at Leonard, and 2 to 95% at Wyndmere. Biennial wormwood control was greater at Fargo than at the other locations probably because of smaller seedling size at the time of treatment. Bentazon split applied at the rate of 560 g ai/ha followed by 560 g/ha approximately 12 d after the first treatment generally provided the least amount of injury to soybean, the greatest control of biennial wormwood, and the fewest escaped plants. Lactofen at 220 g ai/ha or split applied at 110 g/ha followed by 110 g/ha approximately 12 d after the first treatment provided 84% or greater biennial wormwood control at Fargo but less than 40% control at Leonard and Wyndmere. The 4.5:1 bentazon plus acifluorfen premix full-rate and split treatments provided slightly better control than the 2:1 bentazon plus acifluorfen premix full-rate and split treatments. High levels of biennial wormwood control can be achieved with a better understanding of seedling emergence patterns and by targeting postemergence herbicide applications to seedlings less than 5 cm tall.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazonlactofenbiennial wormwood, Artemisia biennis Willd. # ARTBIsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrAMAREARTBIpostemergenceSOLPTsplit treatmentsweed controlweed densityXANSTDOT, day of treatmentWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 380 - 387
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

Bryson, C. T. and Croom, E. M. Jr. 1991. Herbicide inputs for a new agronomic crop, annual wormwood (Artemisia annua). Weed Technol. 5:117–124.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Nalewaja, J. D., Rasmusson, D. D., and Buchli, J. 1981. Survey of wild oats and other weeds in North Dakota, 1978 and 1979. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Rep. 79. 79 p.Google Scholar
Fronning, B. E. 2002. Control of Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis) in Soybean (Glycine max). M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 64 p.Google Scholar
Ghorbani, R., Seel, W., and Leifert, C. 1999. Effects of environmental factors on germination and emergence of Amaranthus retroflexus . Weed Sci. 47:505–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, H. M. and Clements, F. E. 1923. The Phylogenetic Method in Taxonomy. The North American Species of Artemisia, Chrysothanamus, and Atriplex . Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington. Pp 101–102.Google Scholar
Hanway, J. J. and Thompson, H. E. 1967. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. 53. 17 p.Google Scholar
Harris, J. R., Gossett, B. J., Murphy, T. R., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J. Prod. Agric. 4:407–411.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. C., Copeland, P. J., Crookston, R. K., and Pfleger, F. L. 1992. Mycorrhizae: possible explanation for yield decline with continuous corn and soybean. Agron. J. 84:387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegode, G. O. 2000. Biennial wormwood (Artemisia biennis): an emerging weed problem in the northern Great Plains. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 40:18.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O. and Christoffers, M. J. 2003. Intriguing world of weeds: biennial wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd). Weed Technol. 17:646–649.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Jenks, B. M., and Zollinger, R. K. 1999. Biennial wormwood: an emerging weed problem in North Dakota. Abstr. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:216.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Young, B. G. 2001. Response of double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:300–305.Google Scholar
Mahoney, K. J. 2001. Biology of Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.). M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 63 p.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. A. 2001. Interference of Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis Willd.) with Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. M.S. thesis. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. 53 p.Google Scholar
North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Soybeans. in North Dakota Agricultural Statistics 2001. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural Statistics. Pp. 71–73, 114.Google Scholar
Ominski, P. D., Entz, M. H., and Kenkel, N. 1999. Weed suppression by Medicago sativa in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey. Weed Sci. 47:282–290.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. A. and Varvel, G. E. 1989. Crop yield as affected by rotation and nitrogen rate. I. Soybean. Agron. J. 81:727–731.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Storrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 469–476.Google Scholar
Stevens, O. A. 1932. The number and weight of seeds produced by weeds. Am. J. Bot. 19:784–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., and Ball-Coehlo, B. R. 2000. Influence of tillage type on vertical weed seedbank distribution in a sandy soil. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:455–457.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriclture. 2001. North Dakota Agricultural Statistics 1991–2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/. Accessed: April 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:19–24.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A. and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Soybean [Glycine max (L.)] response to lactofen. Weed Sci. 41:23–27.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K., Ries, J. L., and Hammond, J. J. 2003. Survey of Weeds in North Dakota—2000. North Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Rep. ER-83.Google Scholar
Zorner, P. S., Zimdahl, R. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1984. Effect of depth and duration of seed burial on kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci. 32:602–607.Google Scholar