Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:34:00.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max) with Cloransulam-Methyl and Diphenyl Ether Tank-Mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wendy A. Pline ,
John W. Wilcut  and
Keith L. Edmisten
Wendy A. Pline
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Keith L. Edmisten
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1995 and 1996 at three locations in North Carolina to evaluate weed control and soybean injury with postemergence (POST) treatments of cloransulam-methyl alone or in tank-mixture with acifluorfen, fomesafen, or lactofen compared with a commercial standard of acifluorfen plus bentazon. Soybean injury was 2 to 3% 7 d after treatment with cloransulam-methyl applied alone and 11 to 46% when applied with fomesafen, lactofen, acifluorfen, or acifluorfen plus bentazon. Cloransulam-methyl applied alone controlled 95% of entireleaf morningglory and ivyleaf morningglory. Control was not increased by the addition of acifluorfen, fomesafen, or lactofen. Cloransulam-methyl improved the control of common lambsquarters to at least 81% compared with dimethenamid applied preemergence alone (69% control). All diphenyl ether herbicide treatments controlled common lambsquarters at least 91%. Prickly sida control by cloransulam-methyl ranged from 14 to 73% 8 wk after treatment. Control of prickly sida was varied by diphenyl ether herbicides (73 to 100% control). Tank-mixtures of cloransulam-methyl + fomesafen and cloransulam-methyl + acifluorfen increased the control of prickly sida over either herbicide applied alone. Soybean yield was greater for all tank-mixtures than for any diphenyl ether herbicide or for cloransulam-methyl treatment applied alone. But only the acifluorfen + cloransulam-methyl treatment had higher economic returns than the cloransulam-methyl treatment alone. All other POST systems, with the exception of lactofen applied alone, had similar economic returns. Tank-mixtures of cloransulam-methyl and diphenyl ether herbicides increased the spectrum of control and soybean yield compared with these herbicides applied alone.

Keywords

Acifluorfen; bentazon; cloransulam-methyl; dimethenamid; fomesafen; lactofen; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEAL; entireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHG; ivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHE; prickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSP; soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrEconomic analysistank-mixturesALS, acetolactate synthase (EC 4.1.3.18); fb, followed by; POST, postemergence; PPI, preplant incorporated; PRE, preemergence; WAT, wk after POST treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 737 - 742
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

Anonymous. 1998. Prices received by farmers. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Agricultural Statistics Division, Raleigh, NC. Web page: http://www.ncagr.com/stats/pric_rec/prrcanyr.htm.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 20001a. Imazethapyr label. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 428–437.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Flumetsulam label. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 694–699.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001c. Chlorimuron label. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 872–878.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001d. Cloransulam-methyl label. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 606–609.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant-incorporated herbicides and cloransulam-methyl. Weed Technol. 13: 276–282.Google Scholar
Dunphy, E. J., Heiniger, R. W., and Sampson, H. A. 1998. Soybeans (Full Season Coastal Plain): Estimated Revenue, Operating Expenses, Annual Ownership Cost and Net Revenue per Acre (Conventional Tillage, 30 Inch Rows). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics Budget 73-1. 3 p.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 37 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
Hart, S. E., Wax, L. M., and Hager, A. G. 1997. Comparison of total postemergence weed control programs in soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 136–141.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morninglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following treatments of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci. 36: 345–353.Google Scholar
Jachetta, J. J., VanHeertum, J. C., Gerwick, B. C., and Barrentine, J. L. 1995. Cloransulam-methyl: a new herbicide for soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 199.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with chlorimuron plus acifluorfen or thifensulfuron mixtures. Weed Technol. 7: 317–321.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Keeton, A., Smith, J. D., Fowler, J. T., and Toler, J. E. 1998. Sicklepod, pitted morningglory, and Palmer amaranth control in soybean with cloransulam-methyl. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 64.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1998a. Postemergence weed control with CGA-277476 and cloransulam-methyl in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12: 293–299.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1998b. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 46: 587–594.Google Scholar
Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Soybean (Glycine max) response to chlorimuron and imazaquin as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Technol. 6: 389–395.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 866 p.Google Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11: 384–393.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L. 1991. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 290 p.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Wesley, M. T. 1993. Interacting effects on absorption and translocation from tank mixtures of ALS-inhibiting and diphenyl ether herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 693–698.Google Scholar
Stabler, G. F., Murdock, E. C., Keeton, A., and Isgett, T. D. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybeans with Firstrate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 18.Google Scholar
van Wesenbeeck, I. J., Zabik, J. M., Wolt, J. D., Bormett, G. A., and Roberts, D. W. 1997. Field dissipation of cloransulam-methyl at four sites in the U.S. soybean market. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45: 3299–3307.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Reynolds, D. B., and Griffin, J. L. 1993. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with lactofen plus chlorimuron. Weed Technol. 7: 311–316.Google Scholar
Wesley, M. T. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Interactions of diphenyl ether herbicides with clorimuron and imazaquin. Weed Technol. 6: 345–351.Google Scholar