Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:23:46.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Wheat Herbicide Carryover on Double-Crop Cotton and Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey ,
L. Bo Braxton  and
John S. Richburg III
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, 2360 Rainwater Road, Tifton, GA 31793
L. Bo Braxton
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, 1090 Jackson Grove Road, Travelers Rest, SC 29690
John S. Richburg III
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, 102 Kimberly Street, Headland, AL 36345
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the southeastern United States many farmers double-crop winter wheat with soybean or cotton. However, there is little information about residual injury of herbicides used in wheat to these rotational crops. Experiments were conducted from 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 in soft red winter wheat to evaluate response of rotational crops of soybean and cotton after application of various acetolactate synthase herbicides in wheat. Pyroxsulam, mesosulfuron, sulfosulfuron, propoxycarbazone, or chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron at multiple rates were applied to wheat approximately 110 to 120 d before planting rotational crops. Soils were Tift loamy sand at Ty Ty, GA and Faceville sandy loam at Plains, GA. After wheat harvest, soybean (‘Pioneer 97M50’) and cotton (‘DP 0949 B2RF’) were strip-tillage planted and evaluated for injury, stand density, height over time, and yields. For both locations, wheat was tolerant to all herbicide treatments with little to no visible injury 7 to 90 d after application. Pyroxsulam injury was less than sulfosulfuron or mesosulfuron. At recommended use rates, wheat injury was transient with no effect on yield. Double-crop soybean for both locations had no differences in stand establishment for any herbicide treatments. There was significant carryover injury to soybean and cotton for sulfosulfuron applied to wheat for the Faceville sandy loam. There was no effect of herbicide treatment on cotton stand. There was little to no difference in residual activity on rotational crops between pyroxsulam and other wheat herbicides when labeled rates were applied. This is significant as pyroxsulam is used to control Italian ryegrass and wild radish in this region.

En el sureste de los Estados Unidos muchos de los agricultores combinan el cultivo de trigo de invierno con soya o algodón. Sin embargo, existe poca información acerca del daño residual de los herbicidas usados en trigo para estos cultivos en rotación. Se realizaron experimentos de 2007 a 2008 y de 2008 a 2009 en el cultivo de trigo rojo suave de invierno, para evaluar la respuesta de la soya y el algodón como cultivos en rotación después de la aplicación de varios herbicidas ALS en el trigo. Pyroxsulam, mesosulfuron, sulfosulfuron, propoxycarbazone, o chlorsulfuron más metsulfuron a múltiples dosis se aplicaron a este cereal aproximadamente de los 110 a los 120 días antes de sembrar los cultivos en rotación. Los suelos fueron Tift arenoso franco en Ty Ty, GA y Faceville franco arenoso en Plains, GA. Después de la cosecha del trigo, soya (Pioneer 97M50) y algodón (DP 0949 B2RF) fueron sembrados usando labranza en franjas y se evaluó: daño, densidad de plantas, altura a través del tiempo y rendimiento. En ambos sitios, el trigo fue tolerante a todos los tratamientos de herbicida con poco o ningún daño visual entre los 7 y 90 días después de la aplicación (DDA). El daño debido a pyroxsulam fue menor que sulfosulfuron o mesosulfuron. A las dosis recomendadas, el daño al trigo fue transitorio sin tener ningún efecto en el rendimiento. La soya sembrada como cultivo en combinación en ambos sitios, no tuvo diferencias en el establecimiento de las plantas para ninguno de los tratamientos de herbicida. Hubo un daño residual significativo en la soya y en algodón cuando el sulfosulfuron se aplicó al trigo en el suelo franco arenoso en Faceville. No se observó efecto alguno del tratamiento de herbicida en las plantas de algodón. Hubo poca a ninguna diferencia en la actividad residual en los cultivos en rotación entre pyroxsulam y otros herbicidas usados en el trigo cuándo éstos se aplicaron a las dosis recomendadas. Esto es importante ya que pyroxsulam se usa para controlar Lolium multiflorum y Raphanus raphanistrum en esta región.

Keywords

Mesosulfuronpyroxsulampropoxycarbazonesulfosulfuroncotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.soybean, Glycine max Merr. (L.), wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Herbicide persistenceherbicide carryoverrotational crop injurybioassay
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 207 - 212
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, . 2010a. Powerflex herbicide specimen label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences online at http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld8H1009.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2010b. Olympus herbicide specimen label. Bayer CropScience. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld6NL003.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2010c. Osprey herbicide specimen label. Bayer CropScience. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld6JH000.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2010d. Atlantis Technical Guide. 2nd ed. Bayer CropScience http://www.bayercropscience.com.au/resources/products/TechGuide/Atlantis_060227_techguide_2ndEdition-LowRes_BBA705-0106H&T_ctpnc.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2010e. Maverick herbicide specimen label. Monsanto. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld2SS010.pdf. Verified May 5, 2011.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2011. Georgia Pest Control Handbook. Athens, GA Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Science. Online: http://www.ent.uga.edu/pmh/ Verified May 5, 2011.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Control of Italian ryegrass in wheat with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 17:534–542.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A., Stephenson, D. O. IV. Barnes, J. W., Bararpour, M. T., and Oliver, L. R. 2005. Diclofop-resistant Italian ryegrass control in imidazolinone-tolerant wheat. Weed Technol. 19:437–442.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. T., Steckel, L. E., Main, C. L., de Melo, M., West, D. R., and Mueller, T. C. 2010. A survey for diclofop-methyl resistance in Italian ryegrass from Tennessee and how to manage resistance in wheat. Weed Technol. 2010:303–309.Google Scholar
EPA. 2008. Pyroxsulam: Pesticide fact sheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (7501C). Online at http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/pyroxsulam.pdf Verified May 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 2009. Evolution of glyphosate-resistant crop technology. Weed Sci. 57:108–117.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. 2007. Utility of residual herbicides in no-till double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean production. Crop Manag. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org DOI: 10.1094/CM-2007-0122-01-RS.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Bridges, D. C. 2003. Alternatives to diclofop for the control of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 17:219–223.Google Scholar
Hoogenboom, G. 2011. Georgia automated environmental monitoring network. Online at http://www.griffin.uga.edu./aemn/ Verified May 5, 2011.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. J., Barnett, R. D., Cunfer, B. M., Buntin, G. D., and Bland, D. E. 2002. Registration of ‘AGS 2000’ wheat. Crop Sci. 42:661.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. P. and Peeper, T. F. 2003. Wheat and rotational crop response to MON 37500. Weed Technol. 17:55–59.Google Scholar
Khodayari, K., Frans, R. E., and Akkari, K. H. 1985. Evaluation of chlorsulfuron in wheat and in a wheat–soybean double-cropping system. Weed Sci. 33:746–749.Google Scholar
Maheswari, S. T. and Ramesh, A. 2007. Adsorption and degradation of sulfosulfuron in soils. Environ. Monit. Assess. 127:97–103.Google Scholar
Peeper, T. F., Stone, A. E., and Kelly, J. P. 2009. Efficacy of propoxycarbazone-sodium for cheat (Bromus secalinus) control in winter wheat and carryover on double-cropped grain sorghum. Weed Technol. 23:202–205.Google Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Neus, O., Eelen, H., and Bulcke, R. 2001. Persistence and movement of the herbicide propoxycarbazone-sodium in winter wheat crops. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 82:99–111.Google Scholar
Sarmah, A. K. and Sabadie, J. 2002. Hydrolysis of sulfonylurea herbicides in soils and aqueous solutions: a review. J. Agr. Food Chem. 50:6253–6265. DOI: 10.1021/jf025575p.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. A., Thill, D. C., Price, W. J., and Ball, D. A. 1998. Response of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and rotational crops to MON 37500. Weed Technol. 12:690–698.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 458 p.Google Scholar