Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T21:47:29.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Non–Dicamba-Resistant Soybean to Dicamba As Influenced by Growth Stage and Herbicide Rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

Spencer McCown ,
Tom Barber  and
Jason K. Norsworthy
Spencer McCown
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, University of Arkansas Systems Division of Agriculture, Lonoke, AR, USA
Tom Barber*
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Weed Scientist, University of Arkansas Systems Division of Agriculture, Lonoke, AR
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Professor and Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, University of Arkansas Systems Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Tom Barber, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, 2001 Hwy 70 E, Lonoke, AR 72086. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction of the Roundup Ready® Xtend system (Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO) provides an alternative weed management option for growers, but of concern is the risk of dicamba injury to sensitive crops, particularly soybean from off-target movement and tank contamination. Experiments were conducted to determine the response of soybean to low rates of dicamba over a wide range of application timings. Two glufosinate-resistant varieties (HBK 4950LL–indeterminate and HALO 5.45LL–determinate) commonly grown in Arkansas were chosen for these studies. Two rates of dicamba, 2.18 and 8.75 g ae ha–1 (1/256× and 1/64× of the POST labeled rate for dicamba-resistant soybean), were applied at two vegetative (V4, V6) and six reproductive (R1 to R6) growth stages. Compared to the nontreated control, dicamba applied during late vegetative and early reproductive growth of soybean caused leaf injury, plant height reduction, and seed yield loss for both soybean cultivars. Averaged across dicamba rates applied at R1, soybean seed yield was reduced 14% for the HBK 4950LL cultivar and 19% for the HALO 5.45LL cultivar. Averaged over rates, dicamba applied at R1 to the HALO 5.45LL and HBK 4950LL soybean resulted in 48% and 43% visible injury 4 wk after treatment, respectively. Grain yield was similar to that of the nontreated control when dicamba was applied at the later reproductive stages averaged across rates.

Keywords

Lawrence E. Steckel, University of TennesseeGlufosinatedicambasoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Crop injurydriftprogenytank contamination
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 513 - 519
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 Google Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlations to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google Scholar
Barber, LT, Norsworthy, JK, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE, Reynolds, D (2015) Dicamba effects on soybean plants and their progeny. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 68:182 Google Scholar
Behrens, R, Lueschen, WE (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493 Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 Google Scholar
Dill, GM, CaJacob, CA, Padgette, SR (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Manag Sci 64:326–331 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO III, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703 Google Scholar
Holshouser, DL (2001) Virginia soybean production guide. Virginia Cooperative Extension Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center Information Series Number 408. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech UniversityGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 Google Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Barber, L, Scott, R, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE, Reynolds, D (2015) Understanding risks associated with increased use of auxin herbicides in Midsouth crops: what are the concerns? Proc South Weed Sci Soc 68:264 Google Scholar
Ritchie, SW, Hanway, JJ, Thompson, HE, Benson, GO (1994) How a soybean develops? Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. 53:1–20Google Scholar
Scholtes, AB (2014) Determining the effect of auxin herbicide concentration and application timing on soybean (Glycine max) growth and yield. Master’s thesis. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University. 57 pGoogle Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Senseman, RW, Smith, KL (2004) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicide. I. Quantifying injury to cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:1125–1134 Google Scholar
Seifert-Higgins, S, Arnevik, CL (2012) Development of weed management recommendations for dicamba tolerant soybeans. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 65:266 Google Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454–464 Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB Jr, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643 Google Scholar
Westgate, ME (1999) Managing soybeans for photosynthetic efficiency. Crop, Soil, and Water Management. Pages 223–228 in Proceedings of the VI World Soybean Research Conference, Chicago, IL. Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar