Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:47:18.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management Systems Utilizing Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ronald L. Ritter  and
Hiwot Menbere
Ronald L. Ritter
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5821
Hiwot Menbere
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5821
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 1996 to 1998 at Queenstown, MD to evaluate weed management programs utilizing single and multiple applications of glufosinate, with and without preemergence (PRE) and postemergence herbicides in both glufosinate-resistant (GR) corn and soybean. No herbicide treatment resulted in corn or soybean injury greater than 10% at 7 d after treatment (DAT). No injury was visible at 14 DAT for both GR corn and soybean. In corn, all treatments provided 72% or greater giant foxtail control 14 wk after planting (WAP). With soybean, in 1996 and 1998, few differences in giant foxtail control were observed, with all treatments providing at least 93% giant foxtail control 12 WAP. For common lambsquarters control in GR corn, there were no differences in control among treatments for 1996 and 1997. Over 80% common lambsquarters control was observed both years with all treatments 14 WAP. Glufosinate + atrazine at 0.4 kg/ha + 1.7 kg ai/ha, respectively, provided 100% season-long common lambsquarters control all three years of the study. For GR soybean, few differences in common lambsquarters control existed between treatments for all three years. Most treatments provided 72% or greater common lambsquarters control 12 WAP. Few differences in grain yield between herbicide treatments were observed for either GR corn or soybean. These studies illustrated that glufosinate, whether applied alone, sequentially, in tank-mixes, or as an overlay to a PRE program in GR corn and soybean is a viable herbicide program for the control of giant foxtail and common lambsquarters.

Keywords

Atrazine, glufosinate, common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrBAR genePAT genepostemergence herbicidestransgenic herbicide-resistant cropsBAR, bialaphos resistance geneDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byGR, glufosinate resistantLPOST, late postemergenceMPOST, mid postemergencePAT, phosphinothricin acetyl transferasePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 89 - 94
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

Blackshaw, R. E. 1989. HOE-39866 use in chemical fallow systems. Weed Technol. 3: 420–428.Google Scholar
Carlson, K. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Comparative phytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0224, SC-0545, and HOE-00661. Weed Sci. 32: 841–844.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14: 324–333.Google Scholar
D'Halluin, K., De Block, M., Janssens, J., Leemans, J., Reynaerts, A., and Botterman, J. 1992. The BAR gene as a selectable marker in plant engineering. Methods Enzymol. 216: 414–441.Google Scholar
Droge, W., Broer, I., and Pulher, A. 1992. Transgenic plants containing the phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase gene metabolize the herbicide L-phosphinothricin (glufosinate) differently from untransformed plants. Planta 18: 142–151.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. and Lydon, J. 1987. Herbicides from natural compounds. Weed Technol. 1: 122–127.Google Scholar
Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. 1999. Herbicide combinations for weed management in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 354–360.Google Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Non-selective and selective herbicide combinations in stale seedbed (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9: 158–165.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Bradley, P. R., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Efficacy and economics of weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14: 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishore, G. M. and Shah, D. M. 1988. Amino acid biosynthesis inhibitors as herbicides. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 57:627.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., Matthews, J. L., Baldwin, J. L., and Maschoff, J. 1999. Evaluation of glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays) and glufosinate: Efficacy on annual weeds. Weed Technol. 13: 691–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. 1991. Decreasing rates of nonselective herbicides in double-crop no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 198–201.Google Scholar
Rasche, E., Cremer, J., Donn, G., and Zink, J. 1995. The development of glufosinate ammonium tolerant crops into the market. In B. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. pp. 791–800.Google Scholar
Rasche, E. and Gadsby, M. 1997. Glufosinate ammonium tolerant crops—international commercial developments and experiences. In Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. pp. 941–946.Google Scholar
Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of harvest-aid herbicides on soybean (Glycine max) seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 6: 339–344.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Hagood, E. S., Swann, C. W., Wilson, H. P., Curran, W. S., Majek, B. A., and Van Gessel, M. 1996. Weed control in field crops. In Pest Management Recommendations for Field Crops, Ext. Bull. 237. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension, College Park. pp. 15–122.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. 1997. Glufosinate-resistant, BAR-transformed rice (Oriza sativa) and red rice (Oriza sativa) response to glufosinate alone and in mixtures. Weed Technol. 11: 662–666.CrossRefGoogle 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
Tachibana, K. and Kaneko, K. 1986. Development of a new herbicide, Bialaphos. J. Pestic. Sci. 11: 297–304.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13: 807–813.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., Van Gessel, M. J., Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. 1999. Efficacy and crop response to glufosinate-based weed management in PAT-transformed sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33: 531–536.Google Scholar