Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:45:18.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Time of Day on the Activity of Postemergence Soybean Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory J. Stopps ,
Robert E. Nurse  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Gregory J. Stopps
Affiliation:
Mount Forest, ON N0G 2L0, Canada
Robert E. Nurse*
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2585 County Road 20, R.R. No. 2, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of time of day (TOD) on the activity of six common POST herbicides was investigated in field trials from 2007 to 2009 at two locations in southwestern Ontario. Percentage weed control was assessed following application of bentazon, chlorimuron-ethyl, fomesafen, glyphosate, imazethapyr, or quizalofop-p-ethyl applied at 3-h intervals from 6:00 A.M. to midnight, when weeds averaged 15 cm tall. The effect of time of day varied with weed species, but weed control was generally reduced when herbicides were applied at 6:00 A.M., 9:00 P.M., and midnight. Herbicide activity on velvetleaf was most frequently reduced, especially for chlorimuron-ethyl, glyphosate, and imazethapyr. Control of common ragweed with glyphosate and imazethapyr was also affected by the timing of application, and pigweed species only showed an effect with glyphosate. Variation in temperature, relative humidity, and dew presence/absence at different times of the day, as well as morphological/physiological characteristics such as weed size at time of application and diurnal leaf movement in response to light intensity, may account for the variation in weed control at different times of the day. Significant soybean yield loss was not observed in this study, but may occur if herbicide efficacy is severely reduced by application at inappropriate times of day. These results provide valuable information for growers, and suggest that POST herbicides are most effective when applied midday, rather than in the early morning or late evening.

El efecto del momento de aplicación durante el día (TOD) en la actividad de seis herbicidas POST comunes fue investigado en experimentos de campo desde 2007 a 2009 en dos localidades del suroeste de Ontario. El porcentaje de control de malezas fue evaluado después de la aplicación de bentazon, chlorimuron-ethyl, fomesafen, glyphosate, imazethapyr, o quizalofop-p-ethyl, aplicados en intervalos de 3 horas desde 6:00 A.M. hasta medianoche, cuando las malezas tuvieron una altura promedio de 15 cm. El efecto del momento de aplicación durante el día varió dependiendo de la especie de malezas, pero el control de malezas fue generalmente reducido cuando los herbicidas se aplicaron a 6:00 A.M., 9:00 P.M., y medianoche. La actividad herbicida se redujo más frecuentemente en Abutilon theophrasti, especialmente con chlorimuron-ethyl, glyphosate, e imazethapyr. El control de Ambrosia artemisiifolia con glyphosate e imazethapyr también fue afectado por el momento de aplicación, y las especies del género Amaranthus solamente mostraron efectos con glyphosate. Variaciones en temperatura, humedad relativa, y la presencia/ausencia de rocío en diferentes momentos del día, además de las características morfológicas/fisiológicas, tales como el tamaño de las malezas al momento de aplicación, y el movimiento diario de hojas en respuesta a la intensidad lumínica, podrían explicar la variación en el control de malezas en diferentes momentos del día. En este estudio, no se observaron pérdidas significativas en el rendimiento de la soya, pero estas podrían ocurrir si la eficacia del herbicida es reducida severamente debido a aplicaciones en momentos inapropiados durante el día. Los resultados brindan información valiosa para los productores, y sugieren que los herbicidas POST son más efectivos cuando son aplicados al mediodía, en lugar de las aplicaciones temprano en la mañana o tarde al final del día.

Keywords

Bentazonchlorimuron-ethylfomesafenglyphosateimazethapyrquizalofop-p-ethylcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELpigweed species, Amaranthus spvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti MedicABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrHerbicide efficacytime of dayPOST herbicidesweed control
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 690 - 695
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

Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatiband, K., and Loughin, T. M. 2001. Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci. 49:8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, D. L. and Andersen, R. N. 1976. Effectiveness of bentazon applied at various times of the day. Weed Sci. 24:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O. 2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manage. Sci. 61:211–218.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Environmental effects on CGA-248757 and flumiclorac efficacy/soybean tolerance. Weed Sci. 49:668–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1991. Effect of application factors on efficacy of fluazifop-P-butyl in flax. Weed Technol. 5:504–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, F. D. and Falk, R. H. 1990. Herbicide deposition on leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 38:280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 2002. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci. 50:157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, J. P. and Peeper, T. F. 2003. MON 37500 Application timing affects cheat (Bromus secalinus) control and winter wheat. Weed Sci. 51:231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan, M. and Zúñiga, M. 2001. Dew and spray volume effect on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 15:590–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraatz, G. W. and Andersen, R. N. 1980. Leaf movements in sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in relation to herbicide response. Weed Sci. 28:551–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci. 30:520–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madafiglio, G. P., Medd, R. W., Cornish, P. S., and Van de Ven, R. 2000. Temperature-mediated response of flumetsulam and metosulam on Raphanus raphanistrum . Weed Res. 40: 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinson, K. B., Sothern, R. B., Koukkari, W. L., Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. 2002. Circadian response of annual weeds to glyphosate and glufosinate. Chronobiol. Int. 19:405–422.Google Scholar
Miller, R. P., Martinson, K. B., Sothern, R. B., Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. 2003. Circadian response of annual weeds in a natural setting to high and low application rates of four herbicides with different modes of action. Chronobiol. Int. 20:299–324.Google Scholar
Mohr, K., Sellers, B. A., and Smeda, R. J. 2007. Application time of day influences glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 21:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliver, L. R., and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Diurnal leaf movement effects on spray interception and glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 13:466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Røyneberg, T., Balke, N. E., and Lund-Høie, K. 1992. Effects of adjuvants and temperature on glyphosate absorption by cultured cells of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.). Weed Res. 32:419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanyal, D., Bhowmik, P. C., and Reddy, K. N. 2006. Leaf characteristics and surfactant affect primisulfuron droplet spread in three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 54:16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2003. Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol. 17:302–306.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. D. and Singh, M. 2001. Environmental factors affecting absorption and bio-efficacy of glyphosate in Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Crop Prot. 20:511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, C. L., Nurse, R. E., and Sikkema, P. H. 2009. Time of day impacts POST weed control in corn. Weed Technol. 23:346–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, A. L., Martin, A. R., Roeth, F. W., and Lindquist, J. L. 2004. Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf varies with application time of day. Weed Technol. 18:931–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willingham, G. L. and Graham, L. L. 1988. Influence of environmental factors and adjuvants on the foliar penetration of acifluorfen in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti): an analysis using the fractional factorial design. Weed Sci. 36:824–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar