Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:08:54.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identity-Preserved Soybean Tolerance to Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase-Inhibiting Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kimberly D. Belfry ,
Christy Shropshire  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Kimberly D. Belfry*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street East, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 2011 to 2013 near Ridgetown and Exeter, Ontario, Canada to evaluate the tolerance of seven identity-preserved (IP) soybean cultivars to protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides flumioxazin, saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P, and sulfentrazone applied PRE; fomesafen applied POST; as well as PRE followed by (fb) POST application. Ridgetown sites demonstrated excellent tolerance (< 10% injury) to PRE treatments, whereas PRE sulfentrazone caused up to 36% injury at 1 and 2 wk after application (WAA) at Exeter. Of the PRE fb POST treatments evaluated, those containing saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P and sulfentrazone were most injurious to soybean, with cultivar being a further determinant of injury. At Exeter 1 WAA, cultivars ‘S03W4’ and ‘S23T5’ showed 23 to 27 and 45 to 46% injury for saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P and sulfentrazone when followed by POST fomesafen, respectively. Sulfentrazone application (PRE alone or fb fomesafen) consequently reduced S03W4 yield up to 38% and S23T5 up to 25%, whereas saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P fb fomesafen reduced S03W4 by 18%. In general, PRE fb POST caused more injury than PRE treatments; however, injury diminished over time and no significant reduction to soybean yield could be attributed to adding POST fomesafen. On the basis of this study, the injury from PPO herbicides applied PRE is active ingredient, cultivar, and environment specific. Although PPO herbicides have the potential to cause unacceptable crop injury in some IP soybean cultivars, selecting a tolerant cultivar will minimize yield losses.

Seis experimentos de campo fueron realizados desde 2011 a 2013 cerca de Ridgetown y Exeter, Ontario, Canada, para evaluar la tolerancia de siete cultivares de soja con identidad preservada (IP) a los herbicidas inhibidores de protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) flumioxazin, saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P, y sulfentrazone aplicados PRE; fomesafen aplicado POST; y aplicaciones PRE seguidas de (fb) una aplicación POST. Los sitios en Ridgetown demostraron una excelente tolerancia (<10% de daño) a tratamientos PRE, mientras que sulfentrazone PRE causó más de 30% de daño a 1 y 2 semanas después de la aplicación (WAA) en Exeter. De los tratamientos PRE fb POST evaluados, los que contenían saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P y sulfentrazone fueron los más dañinos a la soja, y el cultivar también fue determinante en el daño. En Exeter 1 WAA, los cultivares 'S03W4′ y 'S23T5′ mostraron 23 a 27 y 45 a 46% de daño con saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P y sulfentrazone cuando fueron seguidos de fomesafen POST, respectivamente. La aplicación de sulfentrazone (PRE solo o fb fomesafen) redujo el rendimiento de S03W4 hasta 38% y el de S23T5 hasta 25%, mientras que saflufenacil/dimethenamid-P fb fomesafen redujo el rendimiento de S03W4 en 18%. En general, PRE fb POST causó más daño que los tratamientos PRE. Sin embargo, el daño disminuyó con el tiempo y ninguna reducción en el rendimiento de la soja pudo ser atribuida a la adición de fomesafen POST. Con base en este estudio, el daño de herbicidas PPO aplicados PRE es específico al ingrediente activo, al cultivar, y al ambiente. Aunque los herbicidas PPO tienen el potencial de causar daños inaceptables al cultivo en algunos cultivares IP de soja, el seleccionar un cultivar tolerante minimizará las pérdidas de rendimiento.

Keywords

Flumioxazinfomesafensaflufenacil/dimethenamid-Psulfentrazonesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Sherwin’, ‘S23T5’, ‘X790’, ‘OAC Kent’, ‘S03W4’, ‘Madison’, ‘OAC Lakeview’Dry weightPRE herbicidesPRE followed by POST herbicidesyield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 137 - 147
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri.

References

Literature Cited

Belfry, KD, Soltani, N, Brown, LR, Sikkema, PH (2015) Tolerance of identity preserved soybean cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Can J Plant Sci 95:719–726 Google Scholar
Dayan, FE, Duke, SO (1997) Phytotoxicity of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors: Phenomenology, mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. Pages 11–35 in Roe, RM, Burton, JD, Kuhr, RJ, eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam: IOS Press Google Scholar
Dayan, FE, Weete, JD, Duke, SO, Hancock, HG (1997) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641 Google Scholar
Duke, SO, Lydon, J, Becerril, JM, Sherman, TD, Lehnen, LP Jr., Matsumoto, H (1991) Protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 39:465–473 Google Scholar
FMC Corporation (2014) Authority 480 label. http://www.fmccrop.ca/Products/Herbicides/Authority-480.aspx. Accessed May 29, 2015Google Scholar
Grossmann, K, Hutzler, J, Caspar, G, Kwiatkowski, J, Brommer, CL (2011) Saflufenacil (Kixor™): biokinetic properties and mechanism of selectivity of a new protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase inhibiting herbicide. Weed Sci 59:290–298 Google Scholar
Harris, JR, Gossett, BJ, Murphy, TR, Toler, JE (1991) Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J Prod Agric 4:407–411.Google Scholar
Hulting, AG, Wax, LM, Nelson, RL, Simmons, FW (2001) Soybean (Glycine max (L.) merr.) cultivar tolerance to sulfentrazone. Crop Protect 20:679–683 Google Scholar
Leather, GR, Foy, CL (1977) Metabolism of bifenox in soil and plants. Pestic Biochem Physiol 7:437–442 Google Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Tardif, FJ, Robinson, DE, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2014) Tolerance of soybean (Glycine max L.) to protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors and very long chain fatty acid synthesis inhibitors applied preemergence. Am J Plant Sci 5:1117–1124 Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, CA, Retzinger, EJ (2003) Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol 17:605–619 Google Scholar
Miller, RT, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Kraus, TE, Sikkema, PH (2012) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to saflufenacil. Can J Plant Sci 92:1319–1328 Google Scholar
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2013) Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto, ON. 426 pGoogle Scholar
Poston, DH, Nandula, VK, Koger, CH, Griffin, RM (2008) Preemergence herbicides effect on growth and yield of early-planted Mississippi soybean. Crop Manag 7 (DOI: )Google Scholar
Soy 20/20 (2008) Canada's Soybean Value Chain. http://www.soy2020.ca/pdfs/canadas-soybean-value-chain.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2015Google Scholar
Swantek, JM, Sneller, CH, Oliver, LR (1998) Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci 46:271–277 Google Scholar
Sykuta, M, Parcell, J (2003) Contract structure and design in identity-preserved soybean production. Appl Econ Perspect Pol 25:332–350 Google 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 Google Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Johnson, EN, Beckie, HJ, Sapsford, KL, Willenborg, CJ, Raatz, LL (2014) Additive efficacy of soil-applied pyroxasulfone and sulfentrazone combinations. Can J Plant Sci 94:1245–1253 Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Flumioxazin Pesticide Fact Sheet. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-129034_12-Apr-01.pdf. Accessed October 29, 2015Google Scholar
Walsh, KD, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2015) Biologically effective rate of sulfentrazone applied pre-emergence in soybean. Can J Plant Sci 95:339–344 Google Scholar
Wilson, RG (2005) Response of dry bean and weeds to fomesafen and fomesafen tank mixtures. Weed Technol 19:201–206 Google Scholar