Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:22:56.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean Sensitivity to Drift Rates of Imazosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sandeep S. Rana ,
Jason K. Norsworthy  and
Robert C. Scott
Sandeep S. Rana*
Affiliation:
Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Robert C. Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Box 357, Lonoke, AR 72086
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Imazosulfuron is a sulfonylurea herbicide recently labeled in U.S. rice at a maximum rate of 336 g ai ha−1. Soybean is prone to drift of herbicides from rice fields in the southern United States because these crops are often grown in close proximity. Field trials were conducted to determine the effect of low rates of imazosulfuron applied to nonsulfonylurea-resistant soybean at different growth stages. Soybean was treated at the vegetative cotyledonary (VC); vegetative second trifoliate (V2); vegetative sixth trifoliate (V6); and reproductive full bloom (R2) growth stages with 1/256 (1.3 g ha−1) to 1/4 (84.1 g ha−1) times (X) the maximum labeled rate of imazosulfuron. Soybean was injured regardless of application rate or timing. At 2 wk after treatment (WAT), imazosulfuron injured soybean 23 to 79, 44 to 76, 32 to 68, and 14 to 50% when applied at the VC, V2, V6, and R2 growth stages, respectively, where the highest injury was caused by the highest imazosulfuron rate (1/4X). However, by 20 wk after planting (WAP), soybean treated with imazosulfuron at the VC and V2 growth stages had only 0 to 17% and 8 to 53% injury, respectively. At higher rates [1/8 (42 g ha−1) and 1/4X] of imazosulfuron, soybean treated at the VC growth stage recovered more from injury than did soybean treated at the V2 growth stage. Soybean treated with imazosulfuron at the V6 and R2 growth stages had better recovery from the injury at the lower two rates [1/256 and 1/128X (2.6 g ha−1)] than at the higher rates [1/64 (5.3 g ha−1) to 1/4X]. Imazosulfuron, at all rates tested, delayed soybean maturity by 1 to 4, 2 to 6, 1 to 12, and 3 to 16 d for the VC, V2, V6, and R2 growth stages, respectively. Yield loss was greater when imazosulfuron was applied at V6 and R2 compared to applications at VC and V2. Results from this research indicate that imazosulfuron can severely injure soybean regardless of the growth stage at which drift occurs; however, soybean injured by imazosulfuron at early growth stages (VC and V2) has a better chance of recovery over time compared to drift at later growth stages (V6 and R2).

Imazosulfuron es un herbicida del grupo sulfonylurea que fue recientemente registrado para uso en arroz en Estados Unidos a una dosis máxima de 336 g ai ha−1. La soya tiende a estar expuesta a deriva de herbicidas provenientes de campos de arroz en el sur de los Estados Unidos porque estos cultivos se encuentran generalmente cerca. Se realizaron experimentos de campo para determinar el efecto de dosis bajas de imazosulfuron aplicado a soya no-resistente a sulfonylurea en diferentes estadios de desarrollo. La soya fue tratada en los estadios de desarrollo vegetativo-cotiledonario (VC), vegetativo-segunda hoja trifoliada (V2), vegetativo-sexta hoja trifoliada (V6), y reproductivo-floración completa (R2) con 1/256 (1.3 g ha−1) a 1/4 (84.1 g ha−1) veces (X) la dosis máxima de imazosulfuron según la etiqueta. La soya sufrió daño sin importar la dosis o el momento de aplicación. A 2 semanas después del tratamiento (WAT), imazosulfuron dañó la soya 23 a 79, 44 a 76, 32 a 68, y 14 a 50% cuando se aplicó en los estadios VC, V2, V6, y R2, respectivamente, y en donde el mayor daño fue causado por la dosis mayor (1/4X) de imazosulfuron. Sin embargo, a 20 semanas después de la siembra (WAP), la soya tratada con imazosulfuron en los estadios VC y V2 tuvieron solamente 0 a 17% y 8 a 53% de daño, respectivamente. Con las dosis más altas de imazosulfuron [1/8 (42 g ha−1) and 1/4X], la soya tratada en el estadio VC se recuperó más del daño que la soya tratada en el estadio V2. La soya tratada con imazosulfuron en los estadios V6 y R2 tuvo una mejor recuperación del daño en las dos dosis más bajas [1/256 and 1/128X (2.6 g ha−1)] que en las dosis más altas [1/64 (5.3 g ha−1) to 1/4X]. Con todas las dosis evaluadas, imazosulfuron retrasó la madurez de la soya en 1 a 4, 2 a 6, 1 a 12, y 3 a 16 d para los estadios VC, V2, V6, y R2, respectivamente. La pérdida de rendimiento fue mayor cuando imazosulfuron fue aplicado en V6 y R2 en comparación con las aplicaciones en VC y V2. Los resultados de esta investigación indican que imazosulfuron puede dañar severamente a la soya sin importar el estadio de desarrollo en el que ocurre la deriva. Sin embargo, la soya dañada por imazosulfuron en estadios tempranos de desarrollo (VC y V2) tiene mejores oportunidades de recuperarse con el tiempo, en comparación con deriva causa daño en estadios tardíos de desarrollo (V6 y R2).

Keywords

Imazosulfuronrice, Oryza sativa L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide driftoff-target movementsulfonylurea herbicides
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 443 - 453
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

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
Ashlock, L, Longer, D, Smith, M (2013) Seed grain composition, quality, and testing. Pages 17–21 in MP 197: Arkansas Soybean Production Handbook. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Google Scholar
Bailey, JA, Kapusta, G (1993) Soybean tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol 7:740–745 Google Scholar
Brown, HM (1990) Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pest Manag Sci 29:263–281 Google Scholar
Crooks, HL, York, AC, Culpepper, AS, Brownie, C (2003a). CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 17:373–380 Google Scholar
Crooks, HL, York, AC, Jordan, DL (2003b) Wheat (Triticum aestivum) tolerance and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) control by AE F130060 00 plus AE F115008 00 mixed with other herbicides. Weed Technol 17:881–889 Google Scholar
Davis, BM, Scott, RC, Norsworthy, JK, Gbur, E (2011) Response of soybean (Glycine max) to sublethal rates of glufosinate. Crop Manag DOI: Google Scholar
Devine, MD (1989) Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 4:191–213 Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Stage of soybean development. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Special Report 80. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506 Google Scholar
Godara, RK, Williams, BJ, Webster, EP, Griffin, JL, Miller, DK (2012) Evaluation of imazosulfuron for broadleaf weed control in drill-seeded rice. Weed Technol 26:19–23 Google Scholar
Nandula, VK, Poston, DH, Reddy, KN, Whiting, K (2009) Response of soybean to halosulfuron herbicide. Int J Agron DOI: Google Scholar
Nelson, KA, Renner, KA (1998) Weed control in narrow- and wide-row soybean (Glycine max) with imazamox, imazethapyr, and CGA-277476 plus quizalofop. Weed Technol 1:137–144 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2004) Conventional soybean plant and progeny response to glyphosate. Weed Technol 18:527–531 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Bangarwa, SK, DeVore, JD, McCallister, EK, Wilson, MJ (2010) Corn and soybean response to low rates of imazosulfuron. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 63:232 Google Scholar
Rawlings, JO, Pantula, SG, Dickey, DA (1998) Models nonlinear in the parameters. in Applied Regression Analysis: A Research Tool. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 490–491 Google Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK (2011) Use of imazosulfuron in herbicide programs for drill-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) in the mid-south United States. Weed Technol 25:548–555 Google Scholar
Snipes, CE, Street, JE, Mueller, TC (1992) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci 40:106–109 Google Scholar
Usui, K (2001) Metabolism and selectivity of rice herbicides in plants. Weed Biol Manag 1:137–146 Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G, Penner, D (1989) Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev Weed Sci 4:215–231 Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB Jr., Sobotka, SB (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 4:637–643 Google Scholar
Wilson, CE Jr., Wamishe, Y, Lorenz, G, Hardke, J (2013) Rice stand establishment. Pages 31–40 in Hardke, J. T. ed. MP 192: Arkansas Rice Production Handbook. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Google Scholar