Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:52:22.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Glufosinate- and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Stanley Culpepper ,
Alan C. York ,
Roger B. Batts  and
Katherine M. Jennings
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Roger B. Batts
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was conducted at six locations in North Carolina to compare weed-management treatments using glufosinate postemergence (POST) in glufosinate-resistant soybean, glyphosate POST in glyphosate-resistant soybean, and imazaquin plus SAN 582 preemergence (PRE) followed by chlorimuron POST in nontransgenic soybean. Prickly sida and sicklepod were controlled similarly and 84 to 100% by glufosinate and glyphosate. Glyphosate controlled broadleaf signalgrass, fall panicum, goosegrass, rhizomatous johnsongrass, common lambsquarters, and smooth pigweed at least 90%. Control of these weeds by glyphosate often was greater than control by glufosinate. Mixing fomesafen with glufosinate increased control of these species except johnsongrass. Glufosinate often was more effective than glyphosate on entireleaf and tall morningglories. Fomesafen mixed with glyphosate increased morningglory control but reduced smooth pigweed control. Glufosinate or glyphosate applied sequentially or early postemergence (EPOST) following imazaquin plus SAN 582 PRE often were more effective than glufosinate or glyphosate applied only EPOST. Only rhizomatous johnsongrass was controlled more effectively by glufosinate or glyphosate treatments than by imazaquin plus SAN 582 PRE followed by chlorimuron POST. Yields and net returns with soil-applied herbicides only were often lower than total POST herbicide treatments. Sequential POST herbicide applications or soil-applied herbicides followed by POST herbicides were usually more effective economically than single POST herbicide applications.

Keywords

glufosinate, 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinecarpetweed, Mollugo verticillata L. # MOLVEcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELcutleaf groundcherry, Physalis angulata L. # PHYANeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. # ECLALgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINjohnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. # SORHAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHHerbicide-resistant cropsLiberty Link soybeannontransgenic soybeanRoundup Ready soybeanDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergenceEPSPS, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthaseLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceTHR, transgenic, herbicide-resistantWAA, weeks after late postemergence applicationWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 77 - 88
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

Buhler, D. B. and Werling, V. L. 1989. Weed control from imazaquin and metolachlor in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 392–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 6: 621–625.Google Scholar
Comstock, G. 1998. Is it unnatural to genetically engineer plants? Weed Sci. 46: 647–651.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11: 335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4: 174–185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 324–333.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. In Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. pp. 252–263.Google Scholar
Dunphy, E. J., Heiniger, R. W., and Sampson, H. A. 1998. Soybean. In North Carolina Farm Enterprise Budget Guidelines. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 73 p.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.). Crop Sci. 11: 929–931.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Toxicology and environmental properties of glyphosate. In Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Am. Chem. Soc. Monogr. 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 103–137.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Batts, R. B. 1998. Annual grass control by glyphosate plus bentazon, chlorimuron, fomesafen or imazethapyr mixtures. Weed Technol. 12: 134–136.Google Scholar
Hill, A. S., Murdock, E. C., and Keeton, A. 1997. Weed control in Liberty Link™ Corn and Soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 58–59.Google Scholar
Hinchee, M.A.W., Padgette, S. R., Kishore, G. M., Delannay, X., and Fraley, R. T. 1993. Herbicide-tolerant crops. In Kung, S. and Wu, R., eds. Transgenic Plants. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. pp. 243–263.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Weed control with non-selective herbicides in soybean (Glycine max) stale seedbed culture. Weed Technol. 8: 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. R. 1991. Engineering microbial herbicide detoxification genes in higher plants. In Dennis, E. S. and Llewellyn, D. J., eds. Molecular Approaches to Crop Improvement. Wien, Germany: Springer-Verlag. pp. 79–108.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Hayes, R. M. 1997. Effect of tillage and soil-applied herbicides on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 698–703.Google Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., Guehler, R. E., et al. 1996. Glyphosate-tolerant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44: 1960–1966.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Ghersa, C. M., and Comstock, G. 1992. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops. Weed Technol. 6: 635–639.Google Scholar
Riley, D. G. and Shaw, D. R. 1988. Influence of imazapyr on the control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) with chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 36: 663–666.Google Scholar
Singh, M. and Tucker, D.P.H. 1987. Glufosinate (Ignite): a new promising postemergence herbicide for citrus. Proc. Florida State Hortic. Soc. 100: 58–61.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998a. Evaluation of chlorimuron, fomesafen, and imazethapyr as potential tank-mixture partners for glufosinate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:11.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998b. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46: 652–660.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, H. F., York, A. C., Morey, A. E., Padmore, J. M., and Rudo, K. M. 1998. The impact of pesticide use on groundwater in North Carolina. J. Environ. Qual. 27: 1018–1026.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U. S. agriculture. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. A., Coble, H. D., and Modena, S. A. 1995. HERB: Postemergence Weed Control. Version 5.02. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0024, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531:536.Google Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future impact of crops with modified herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 6: 665–668.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Weed management in Liberty Link corn and soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:2.Google Scholar