Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:08:57.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of sulfentrazone and metribuzin applied preemergence on soybean development and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2020

Nikola Arsenijevic Open the ORCID record for Nikola Arsenijevic [Opens in a new window] ,
Matheus de Avellar ,
Liberty Butts ,
Nicholas John Arneson Open the ORCID record for Nicholas John Arneson [Opens in a new window]  and
Rodrigo Werle Open the ORCID record for Rodrigo Werle [Opens in a new window]
Nikola Arsenijevic
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Former Research Assistant, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Matheus de Avellar
Affiliation:
Former Research Assistant, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Liberty Butts
Affiliation:
Former Research Technician, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Nicholas John Arneson
Affiliation:
Outreach Specialist, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Rodrigo Werle*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Former Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Rodrigo Werle, Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI53705. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of photosystem II (PSII)-inhibitor and/or protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibitor PRE herbicides in soybean may, under adverse environmental conditions, result in early season crop injury. A field study was conducted near Brule and North Platte, Nebraska, during the 2016 and 2017 growing seasons with the objective to evaluate the impact of PRE herbicides metribuzin (PSII-inhibitor) and sulfentrazone (PPO-inhibitor) on early season soybean development, final plant stand, and yield using 22 soybean varieties adapted to southwestern Nebraska. Herbicide treatments consisted of metribuzin (560 g ai ha−1) and sulfentrazone (280 g ai ha−1) applied within 3 d after planting and a nontreated control (NTC). Sulfentrazone reduced green canopy vegetation at the V2 growth stage by 22% and final plant stand at physiological maturity by 10% compared with the NTC. The number of pods per plant was 16% higher for sulfentrazone and the number of seeds per plant was 15% and 4% higher for sulfentrazone and metribuzin compared with the NTC, respectively. Sulfentrazone and metribuzin resulted in a slightly higher yield (3%) compared with the NTC, thus no yield reduction from PRE herbicides was observed in this study. These results support other findings that sulfentrazone and metribuzin have potential to cause early-season crop injury; however, when applied according to their label recommendations and following regional agronomic management practices, this impact may not translate into soybean yield reduction while such herbicides provide effective soil residual weed control.

Keywords

Canopeo appcrop injuryherbicide injuryherbicide phytotoxicitymetribuzinsulfentrazonesoybeanGlycine max L. Merr.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 210 - 215
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: William Johnson, Purdue University

References

Arneson, NJ, Smith, DH, DeWerff, R, Oliveira, MC (2019) Residual Control of Waterhemp with Pre-emergence Herbicides in Soybean. https://www.wiscweeds.info/img/2018%202019%20waterhemp%20challenge/PreEmergence_waterhempFINAL.pdf. Accessed: May 8, 2020Google Scholar
Belfry, D, Soltani, N, Brown, RL, Sikema, HP (2015) Tolerance of identity preserved soybean cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Can J Plant Sci 95:719–726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollich, PK, Dunigan, EP, Jadi, AW (1985) Effects of seven herbicides on N2 (C2H2) fixation by soybeans. Weed Sci 33:427–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, KW, Hagood, ES, Davis, PH (2004) Trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) control in double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 18:298–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Miller, JJ, Pruitt, JD, Vieira, BC, Oliveira, MC, Ramirez, S II, Linquist, JL (2017) Light quality effect on corn growth as influenced by weed species and nitrogen rate. J Agric Sci 9:15 Google Scholar
Coble, HD, Schrader, JW (1973) Soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci 21:308–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, WJ, Cherney, JH (2011) Growth and yield responses of soybean to row spacing and seeding rate. Agron J 103:123–128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, FE, Weete, JD, Duke, SO, Hancock, HG (1997) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–664 Google Scholar
Duke, SO (2015) Perspectives on transgenic, herbicide-resistant crops in the United States almost 20 years after introduction. Pest Manag Sci 71:652–657 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Pages 4–5 in Stages of Soybean Development. Special Report 80. Ames: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service and Home Economics Experiment Station. Pp 4–5Google Scholar
Givens, WA, Shaw, DR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MD, Jordan, D (2009) A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol 23:156–161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, TL, Walker, RH, Wehtje, GR, Hancock, HG (1997) Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci 45:733–738 Google Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Bollero, GA, Simmons, FW (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) management with soil-applied herbicides in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Crop Prot 21:277–283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, B (2004) Sulfentrazone and flumioxazin injury to soybean. Ames: Iowa State University Extension. http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/weeds/mgmt/2004/ppoinjury.shtml. Accessed: May 29, 2020Google Scholar
Hartzler, B (2017) Evaluating herbicide injury on soybean. Ames: Iowa State University Extension. https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/cropnews/2017/05/evaluating-herbicide-injury-soybean. Accessed: May 29, 2020Google Scholar
Johnson, WG, Bradley, PR, Hart, SE, Buesinger, ML, Massey, RE (2000a). Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 14:57–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, WG (2000b) Herbicide resistant corn–survey results from 1998 and 2000. Pages 70–71 in Proceedings of the 55th North Central Weed Science Society Meeting. Kansas City, MO: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Pavlovic, P, Osipitan, OA, Barnes, ER, Beiermann, C, Oliveira, MC, Lawrence, N, Scott, JE, Jhala, AJ (2019) Critical time for weed removal in glyphosate-resistant soybean as influenced by preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 33:393–399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR (2018) Genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and herbicide-resistant weed evolution in the United States. Weed Sci 66:260–273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, AV, Jha, P (2015). Effective preemergence and postemergence herbicide programs for kochia control. Weed Technol 29:24–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, K, Ma, Y, Xie, Y, Zhou, B, Wang, R (2012) A new adaptive contrast enhancement algorithm for infrared images based on double plateaus histogram equalization. Infrared Phys Technol 55:309–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moomaw, RS, Martin, AR (1978) Interaction of metribuzin and trifluralin with soil type on soybean (Glycine max) growth. Weed Sci 26:327–331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, JW, Johnson, WG, Smeda, RJ (2000) Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 13:233–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, G, Griffin, T, Bagavathiannan, M, Gbur, EE (2014) In-field movement of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and its impact on cotton lint yield: evidence supporting a zero-threshold strategy. Weed Sci 62:237–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, MC, Feist, D, Eskelsen, S, Scott, JE, Knezevic, SZ (2017) Weed control in soybean with preemergence- and postemergence-applied herbicides. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. doi: 10.2134/cftm2016.05.0040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, BT, Shaw, DR, Ratliff, RL (1995) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to SAN 582H and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Sci 43:288–292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paruelo, JM, Lauenroth, WK, Roset, PA (2000) Technical note: Estimating aboveground plant biomass using a photo-graphic technique. J Range Manage 53:190–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrignani, A, Ochsner, TE (2015) Canopeo: A powerful new tool for measuring fractional green canopy cover. Agron J 107:2312–2320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, SB (2008) Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: Lessons to be learnt. Pest Manage Sci 64:360–365 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, KN, Whiting, K (2000) Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol 14:204–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, HV, Maia, GSL, Arneson, NJ, Jean-Michel, A, Santos, BJ, Werle, R (2019) Influence of PRE-Emergence Herbicides on Soybean Nodulation and Nitrogen Fixation. Page 157 in Proceedings of the 74th North Central Weed Science Society Meeting. Westminster, CO: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Rogers, RL, Sloane, LW, Zaunbrecher, S (1971) Performance of Bay-94337 as a soybean herbicide in Louisiana. Page 73 in Proceedings of the 24th Southern Weed Science Society Meeting. Westminster, CO: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Sandell, LD, Knezevic, SZ, Aulakh, JS, Lindquist, JL, Irmak, S, Jhala, AJ (2014) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Nebraska. Weed Technol 29:82–92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swantek, JM, Sneller, CH, Oliver, LR (1998) Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci 46:271–277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Nelson, R (2001) Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol 15:95–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tursun, N, Datta, A, Sakinmaz, MS, Kantarci, Z, Knezevic, SZ, Chauhan, BS (2016) The critical period for weed control in three corn (Zea mays L.) types. Crop Prot 90:59–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017) Agriculture chemical use survey: Soybeans. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2017_Cotton_Soybeans_Wheat_Highlight/ChemUseHighlights_Soybeans_2017.pdf. Accessed: May 29, 2020Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81: 637–643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, M (2011) Residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control. J Cotton Sci 15:89–99 Google Scholar
Wise, K, Mueller, DS, Kandel, Y, Young, B, Johnson, B, Legleiter, T (2015) Soybean seedling damage: Is there an interaction between the ILeVO seed treatment and pre-emergence herbicides? Ames: Iowa State University Press Integrated Crop Management News CrossRefGoogle Scholar