Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:02:43.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Soybean as Influenced by Residual Herbicide Use and Glyphosate-Application Timing Following Different Planting Dates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan P. DeWerff ,
Shawn P. Conley ,
Jed B. Colquhoun  and
Vince M. Davis
Ryan P. DeWerff
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Shawn P. Conley
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Jed B. Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Vince M. Davis*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean planting has occurred earlier in the Midwestern United States in recent years; however, earlier planting subjects the crop to longer durations of weed interference. This may change the optimum timing of POST glyphosate applications, or increase the need for residual herbicides applied PRE to optimize yield. A field study was conducted in 2012 and 2013 near Arlington, WI to determine the effect of planting date, residual herbicide use, and POST glyphosate timing on weed control and soybean yield. Planting dates were late April, mid-May, and early June. A PRE application of sulfentrazone plus cloransulam was applied to half the plots following each planting date. Glyphosate was applied POST to all plots at the V1, V2, V4, or R1 soybean growth stage. Planting date and glyphosate timing did not affect soybean yield in this study. However, averaged across years, planting dates, and POST glyphosate timings, yield increased from 3,280 to 3,500 kg ha−1 when a PRE herbicide with residual soil activity was used. In POST-only treatments, delaying the planting date to June decreased weed density at POST application timing from 127 to 5 plants m−2 (96%) and from 205 to 42 plants m−2 (80%) in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Where a PRE was used, total weed density at POST application timing was always less within planting date, and also declined from early to late planting date 26 to 3 plants m−2 (89%) and 23 to 6 plants m−2 (74%) in 2012 and 2013, respectively. In conclusion, both PRE herbicide use and delayed soybean planting were effective strategies to reduce the number of in-crop weeds exposed to POST glyphosate and should be considered as strategies to reduce the number of weeds exposed to POST herbicides for resistance management.

La siembra de la soja se ha dado más temprano, en años recientes en el Medio oeste de los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, la siembra temprana expone al cultivo a períodos más largos de interferencia de malezas. Esto podría cambiar el momento óptimo para las aplicaciones POST de glyphosate, o podría incrementar la necesidad de aplicación PRE de herbicidas residuales para optimizar el rendimiento. En 2012 y 2013, cerca de Arlington, Wisconsin, se realizó un estudio de campo para determinar el efecto de la fecha de siembra, el uso de herbicidas residuales, y el momento de aplicación POST de glyphosate sobre el control de malezas y el rendimiento de la soja. Las fechas de siembra fueron: al final de Abril, la mitad de Mayo, y el inicio de Junio. Se aplicó sulfentrazone más cloransulam PRE a la mitad de las parcelas después de cada fecha de siembra. Glyphosate fue aplicado POST a todas las parcelas en los estadios de desarrollo V1, V2, V4, o R1 de la soja. La fecha de siembra y el momento de aplicación de glyphosate no afectaron el rendimiento de la soja en este estudio. Sin embargo, al promediar los años, las fechas de siembra, y los momentos de aplicación POST de glyphosate, el rendimiento incrementó de 3,280 a 3,500 kg ha−1 cuando se usó un herbicida PRE con actividad residual. En tratamientos con solo aplicaciones POST, el retrasar la fecha de siembra a Junio redujo la densidad de malezas al momento de la aplicación POST de 127 a 5 plantas m−2 (96%) y de 205 a 42 plantas m−2 (80%) en 2012 y 2013, respectivamente. Donde se usó una aplicación PRE, la densidad total de malezas al momento de la aplicación POST fue siempre menor, dentro de cada fecha de siembra, y también disminuyó de la fecha de siembra temprana a la tardía de 26 a 3 plantas m−2 (89%) y de 23 a 6 plantas m−2 (74%) en 2012 y 2013, respectivamente. En conclusión, el uso de herbicidas PRE y la siembra retrasada de la soja fueron estrategias efectivas para reducir el número de malezas dentro del cultivo expuestas a glyphosate POST y deberían ser consideradas como estrategias para reducir el número de malezas expuestas a herbicidas POST para el manejo de resistencia.

Keywords

Glyphosatecloransulamsulfentrazonesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide-resistant cropsintegrated weed managementpreemergence herbicideweed interference
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 71 - 81
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

Bastidas, AM, Setiyono, TD, Dobermann, A, Cassman, KG, Elmore, RW, Graef, GL, Specht, JE (2008) Soybean sowing date: the vegetative, reproductive, and agronomic impacts. Crop Sci 48:727–740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, GEP, Cox, DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 26:211–252 Google Scholar
Buhler, DD, Gunsolus, JL (1996) Effect of date of preplant tillage and planting on weed populations and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:373–379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartter, JL, Hartwig, EE (1963) Management of soybeans. Pages 359–412 in Norman, AG, ed. The Soybean. New York: Academic Press Google Scholar
Coulter, JA, Nafziger, ED (2007) Planting date and glyphosate timing on soybean. Weed Technol 21:359–366 Google Scholar
Coulter, JA, Sheaffer, CC, Haar, MJ, Wyse, DL, Orf, JH (2011) Soybean cultivar response to planting date and seeding rate under organic management. Agron J 103:1223–1229 Google Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2008) Soybean seed yield response to planting date and seeding rate in the upper Midwest. Agron J 100:696–703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egli, DB, Cornelius, PL (2009) A regional analysis of the response of soybean yield to planting date. Agron J 101:330–335 Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Stages of Soybean Development. Special Report 80. Ames, IA: Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Buhler, DD, Stoltenberg, DE (1999) Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584 Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, KL, Martin, AR, Mortensen, DA, Mason, SC (2004) Weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean: weed emergence patterns in relation to glyphosate treatment timing. Weed Technol 16:554–566 Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Influence of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max) planting date on weed interference. Weed Sci 42:61–65 Google Scholar
Myers, MW, Curran, WS, VanGessel, MJ, Calvin, DD, Mortensen, DA, Majek, BA, Karsten, HD, Roth, GW (2004) Predicting weed emergence for eight annual species in the northeastern United States. Weed Sci 52:913–919 Google Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, JA (2011) Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri . Weed Res 51:99–112 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(sp1):31–62 Google Scholar
Oliver, LR (1979) Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci 27:183–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onofri, A, Carbonell, EA, Piepho, HP, Mortimer, AM, Cousens, RD (2010) Current statistical issues in weed research. Weed Res 50:5–24 Google Scholar
Oplinger, ES, Gaska, JM (1996) Planting Date of Soybeans in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison. www.soybean.uwex.edu. Accessed November 5, 2012Google Scholar
Robinson, AP, Conley, SP, Volenec, JJ, Santini, JB (2009) Analysis of high yielding, early-planted soybean in Indiana. Agron J 101:131–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowntree, SC, Suhre, JJ, Weidenbenner, NH, Wilson, EW, Davis, VM, Naeve, SL, Casteel, SN, Diers, BW, Esker, PD, Specht, JE, Conley, SP (2013) Genetic gain × management interactions in soybean: I. Planting date. Crop Sci 53:1–11 Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean seperation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group Intl. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2010) Environment and soil conditions influence pre-and postemergence herbicide efficacy in soybean. Weed Technol 24:234–243 Google Scholar
Stoller, EW, Wax, LM (1973) Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci 21:574–580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014) Soybean-Planted Progress (National) 1980–2011. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov. Accessed March 14, 2014Google Scholar