Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:04:44.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Selected Soybean (Glycine max) Cultivars to Dimethenamid and Metolachlor in Hydroponic Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Bradley T. Osborne ,
David R. Shaw  and
Randall L. Ratliff
Bradley T. Osborne
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant & Soil Sci., Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant & Soil Sci., Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
Randall L. Ratliff
Affiliation:
Sandoz Agro, Inc., Greenville, MS 38701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean cultivars were grown in a hydroponic culture to evaluate tolerance to dimethenamid and metolachlor. Root length was reduced in 7 of the 32 cultivars with 50 ppb dimethenamid. ‘Asgrow 5403’ and ‘Bryan’ root lengths were reduced more than 20%. ‘Asgrow 6297’ was the only cultivar with greater than 12% root length reductions with 83 ppb metolachlor. The longest lateral root of all cultivars was shortened with dimethenamid. ‘NK-1460’ and Bryan expressed the most lateral root length reduction, at 73 and 62%, respectively. Asgrow 6297 was tolerant to dimethenamid, but lateral roots were reduced 16%. Metolachlor reduced the lateral root lengths of 12 cultivars, with Asgrow 5403, ‘Coker 6955,’ and Bryan reduced more than 20%. Bryan was the most sensitive cultivar to both herbicides, while ‘Brim’ was the most tolerant of cultivars evaluated.

Keywords

Dimethenamid, 2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethyl-thien-3-yl)-acetamide metolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide tolerancecultivarchloroacetamide
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 178 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the 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

1. Anonymous. 1992. Dimethenamid experimental herbicide; a technical overview Sandoz Agro. Inc., Des Plaines, IL.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, J. Jr., and Hartwig, E. E. 1976. Screening soybeans for tolerance to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:351–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Driver, J. E., Peeper, T. F., and Guenzi, A. C. 1992. In vitro selection for increased wheat tolerance to metsulfuron. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:316.Google Scholar
4. Edwards, C. J. Jr., Barrentine, W. L., and Kilen, T. C. 1976. Inheritance of sensitivity of soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Crop Sci. 16:119–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Graf, G. R. and Ogg, N. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.Google Scholar
6. Hayes, R. M. and Wax, L. M. 1975. Differential interspecific response of soybean cultivars to bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:516–521.Google Scholar
7. Kent, L. M., Barrentine, W. L., and Wills, G. D. 1988. Response of twenty determinate soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to imazaquin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:50.Google Scholar
8. Martin, D. M., Worthington, J. P., and Gray, E. 1987. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar response to fluchloralin, metribuzin, and vernolate. Weed Technol. 1:282–285.Google Scholar
9. Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to chlorimuron and imazaquin with varying hydroponic solution pH. Weed Technol. 6:382–388.Google Scholar
10. Osborne, B. T., Shaw, D. R., Ratliff, R. L., and Ferguson, G. P. 1992. Soybean cultivar tolerance to SAN 582 and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:52.Google Scholar
11. Pillai, C. G. P., Davis, D. E., and Truelove, B. 1979. Effects of metolachlor on germination, growth, leucine uptake and protein synthesis. Weed Sci. 27:634–637.Google Scholar
12. Pomeranke, G. J. and Nickell, C. D. 1988. Inheritance of chlorimuron-ethyl sensitivity in the soybean strains BSR 101 and M74–462. Crop Sci. 28:59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Response of corn (Zea mays) cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci. 36:625–628.Google Scholar
14. Runyan, T. J., McNeill, W. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:94–97.Google Scholar
15. Shaw, D. R., Smith, C. A., Coats, G. E., Askew, J. E. Jr., Edwards, N. C. Jr., and Hovermale, C. H. 1988. Metribuzin tolerance in soybeans. Miss. Agri. For. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. No. 152, 10 p.Google Scholar
16. Smith, R. J. Jr. and Caviness, C. E. 1973. Differential response of soybean cultivars to propanil. Weed Sci. 21:279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Boykin, D. L. 1987. Influence of flood interval and cultivar on rice (Oryza sativa) tolerance to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 35:842–845.Google Scholar
18. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Different tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayes, R. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron, and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.Google Scholar
20. Willard, T. S., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., Vidrine, P. R., and Habetz, R. J. 1990. Evaluation of AC 263,222 in soybeans in Louisiana. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:29.Google Scholar
21. Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Differential response of soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 5:430–433.Google Scholar