Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:15:25.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Soybean Seeding Rate, Row Spacing, and Herbicide Programs on the Control of Resistant Waterhemp in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John L. Schultz ,
D. Brenton Myers  and
Kevin W. Bradley
John L. Schultz
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, 201 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
D. Brenton Myers
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, 201 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Kevin W. Bradley*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, 201 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Field experiments were conducted in 2012 and 2013 to determine the effects of row spacing, seeding rate, and herbicide programs on multiple-resistant waterhemp control and yield in glufosinate-resistant soybean. The two herbicide programs evaluated were: (1) a PRE application of fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by early POST application of glufosinate plus acetochlor, referred to as the PRE followed by (fb) POST with residual (w/RES) herbicide program; and (2) an early POST followed by a late POST application of glufosinate, referred to as the two-pass POST herbicide program. Results indicate that the PRE fb POST w/RES program provides greater control of resistant waterhemp compared to the two-pass POST herbicide program. In 2012, the PRE fb POST w/RES program resulted in a 99% waterhemp density reduction and 156 kg ha−1 increase in yield compared to the 72% density reduction by the two-pass POST program. In 2013, the two-pass POST program was equally as effective on density reduction and yield as the PRE fb POST w/RES program. Waterhemp control and density reduction was always greatest with 19- and 38- compared to 76-cm rows. In 2012, the PRE fb POST w/RES program provided at least 95% control and greater than 98% density reduction across all row spacings, whereas the two-pass POST program provided 95%, 95%, and 85% control and 87%, 80%, and 50% density reduction in 19-, 38-, and 76-cm rows, respectively. Soybean seeding rate did not affect waterhemp control or density in either year. In both years, 165,000 seeds ha−1 yielded lower than the three higher seeding rates. Overall, results from these experiments indicates that the use of a PRE fb POST w/RES program, narrow-row spacing, and seeding rates of 240,000 to 315,000 seeds ha−1 or greater provides the greatest waterhemp control, density reduction, and soybean yield when multiple resistant waterhemp is present.

En 2012 y 2013, se realizaron experimentos de campo para determinar los efectos de la distancia entre hileras, la densidad de siembra, y los programas de herbicidas sobre el control de Amaranthus rudis resistente a múltiples herbicidas y sobre el rendimiento de soja resistente a glufosinate. Los dos programas de herbicidas evaluados fueron: (1) una aplicación PRE de fomesafen más S-metolachlor seguida de una aplicación POST temprana de glufosinate más acetochlor, el cual se designó como el programa de PRE seguido de (fb) POST con herbicida residual (w/RES); y (2) una aplicación POST temprana seguida por una aplicación POST tardía de glufosinate, el cual fue designado como el programa de dos pases con herbicida POST. Los resultados indican que el programa PRE fb POST w/RES brinda mayor control de A. rudis resistente que el programa con dos pases con herbicida POST. En 2012, el programa PRE fb POST w/RES resultó en una reducción de 99% de la densidad de A. rudis y 156 kg ha−1 de incremento en el rendimiento en comparación con una reducción de la densidad de 72% con el programa de dos pases POST. En 2013, el programa de dos pases POST fue igualmente efectivo con respecto a la reducción en la densidad de la maleza y el rendimiento del cultivo que el programa PRE fb POST w/RES. El control de A. rudis y la reducción en la densidad de sus poblaciones fueron siempre mayores en hileras espaciadas a 19 y 28 que a 76 cm. En el 2012, el programa PRE fb POST w/RES brindó al menos 95% de control y una reducción en la densidad superior a 98% en todas las distancias entre hileras, mientras que el programa de dos pases POST brindó 95%, 95%, y 85% de control y 87%, 80%, y 50% de reducción en la densidad en hileras espaciadas a 19, 38, y 76 cm, respectivamente. La densidad de siembra de la soja no afectó el control de A. rudis o su densidad en ningún año. En ambos años, 165,000 semillas ha−1 tuvo un menor rendimiento que las tres densidades de siembra más altas. En general, los resultados de estos experimentos indican que el uso de un programa PRE fb POST w/RES, distancia entre hileras menores, y densidades de siembra de 240,000 a 315,000 semillas ha−1 o mayores brindan el mayor control de A. rudis, la mayor reducción en sus poblaciones, y el mayor rendimiento de la soja cuando A. rudis con resistencia múltiple está presente.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauersoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Pigweedsoybean row spacingweed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 169 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, WP, (1996) Weed Science Principles and Applications. 3rd edn. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. 388 pGoogle Scholar
Arce, GD, Pedersen, P, Hartzler, RG (2009) Soybean seeding rate effects on weed management. Weed Technol 23:17–22 Google Scholar
Bernards, ML, Crespo, RJ, Kruger, GR, Gaussoin, R, Tranel, PJ (2012) A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population resistant to 2,4–D. Weed Technol 60:379–384 Google Scholar
Bracy, BP, Parish, RL (2001) A comparison of seeding uniformity of agronomic and vegetable seeders. HortTechnology 11:184–186 Google Scholar
Bradley, KW (2006) A review of the effects of row spacing on weed management in corn and soybean. Crop Management DOI: Google Scholar
Bradley, KW (2013) Herbicide-resistance in the Midwest: current status and impacts. Weed Sci Soc Am. Abstr 53:271.[Abstract]Google Scholar
Bradley, KW, Legleiter, T, Hunter, L, Nichols, C, Foresman, C (2007) The status of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in Missouri. Page 192 in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society [Abstract] Google Scholar
Buehring, NW, Shaw, DR, Nice, GRW (2002) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control and soybean (Glycine max) response to soybean row spacing and population in three weed management systems. Weed Technol 16:131–141 Google Scholar
Burnside, OC (1979) Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci 27:562–565 Google Scholar
Burnside, OC, Colville, WL (1964) Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12:109–112 Google Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of herbicide programs on weed management in soybean with resistance to glufosinate and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:78–84 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Batts, RB, Jennings, KM (2000) Weed management in glufosinate and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:77–88 Google Scholar
Dalley, CD, Renner, KA, Kells, JJ (2004) Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 18:177–182 Google Scholar
Grichar, WJ, Bessler, BA, Brewer, KD (2004) Effect of row spacing and herbicide dose on weed control and grain sorghum yield. Crop Prot 23:263–267 Google Scholar
Hager, A, Wax, L, Simmons, W, Sprague, C (2000) Waterhemp Management in Illinois Agronomic Crops. 2000 Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Extension. 294 pGoogle Scholar
Harder, DB, Renner, KA, Sprague, CL (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technol 21:744–752 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2014) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx. Accessed March 21, 2014Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Mainz, M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:666–673 Google Scholar
Krausz, RF, Kapusta, G, Matthews, JL (1993) Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to 2,4-D ester applied preplant. Weed Technol 7:906–910 Google Scholar
Legere, A, Schreiber, MM (1989) Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 37:84–92 Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Bradley, KW (2008) Glyphosate and multiple herbicide resistance in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations from Missouri. Weed Sci 56:582–587 Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Bradley, KW, Massey, RE (2009) Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control and economic returns with herbicide programs in soybean. Weed Technol 23:54–61 Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D, Boerboom, CM (2000) Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci 48:35–42 Google Scholar
Nelson, KA, Renner, KA (1998) Weed control in wide- and narrow-row soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox, imazethapyr, and CGA-277476 plus quizalofop. Weed Technol 12:137–144 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliver, LR (2001) Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin. Weed Technol 15:284–292 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliver, LR (2002) Hemp sesbania interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 50:34–41 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 2012 Special Issue:31–62 Google Scholar
O'Donovan, JT, Harker, KN, Clayton, GW, Newman, JC, Robinson, D, Hall, LM (2001) Barley seeding rate influence the effects of variable herbicide rates on wild oat. Weed Sci 49:746–754 Google Scholar
Pedersen, P (2008) Optimum Plant Population in Iowa. http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/documents/OptimumPlantPop.pdf. Accessed November 15, 2013Google Scholar
Pedersen, P, Lauer, JG (2003) Corn and soybean response to rotation sequence, row spacing, and tillage system. Agron J 95:965–971 Google Scholar
Powles, SB (2008) Evolved glyphosate-resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag Sci 64:360–365 Google Scholar
Puricelli, EC, Faccini, DE, Orioli, GA, Sabbatini, MR (2003) Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) competition in narrow- and wide-row soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:446–451 Google Scholar
Rich, AM, Renner, KA (2007) Row spacing and seeding rate effects on eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) and soybean. Weed Technol 21:124–130 Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, KK, Bradley, KW (2013) A survey of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in Missouri soybean fields and prediction of glyphosate resistance in future waterhemp populations based on in-field observations and management practices. Weed Technol 27:656–663 Google Scholar
Schultz, JL, Chatham, LA, Riggins, CW, Tranel, PJ, Bradley, KW (2015) Distribution of herbicide resistance and molecular mechanisms conferring resistance in Missouri waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) populations. Weed Sci 63:336–345 Google Scholar
Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2003) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145–150.Google Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Seifert-Higgins, S, Bradley, KW (2014) Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) management in dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 28:131–141 Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL (2004) Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol 18:947–952 Google Scholar
Taylor, HM (1980) Soybean growth and yield as affected by row spacing and by seasonal water supply. Agron J 72:543–547 Google Scholar
Waggoner, BS, Bradley, KW (2011) A survey of weed incidence and severity in response to management practices in Missouri soybean production fields. Page 80 in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society [Abstract] Google Scholar
Yelverton, FH, Coble, HD (1991) Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:169–174 Google Scholar
Young, BG (2006) Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301–307 Google Scholar