2016Crop Forage & Turfgrass ManagementRequires access

Herbicide Programs for Managing Troublesome Weeds Using New Soybean Technologies

Christopher J. Meyer, Jason Keith Norsworthy, Mohammad T. Bararpour

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars will soon be available with stacked resistance to various herbicides, including glyphosate, glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4‐D, and several 4‐hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)–inhibiting herbicides. As many combinations of these herbicides have not been used in soybean preemergence (PRE) or postemergence (POST), two experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 at Keiser, AR, to evaluate various herbicide combinations for control of Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv., Ipomoea lacunosa L., and Sida spinosa L. In the Herbicide Programs trial, 25 herbicide programs were evaluated that consisted of PRE herbicides followed by POST herbicides 3 to 4 weeks after (WA) the PRE application (EPOST), or 6 to 7 WA the PRE application (LPOST). The programs that contained EPOST herbicides controlled I. lacunosa, S. spinosa, and E. crus‐galli ≥95% 2 WA EPOST. Based on orthogonal contrasts, future programs utilizing an auxinic or HPPD‐resistance trait did not perform better than currently labeled soybean herbicides for control and weed density of E. crus‐galli and S. spinosa, but future programs outperformed current programs for control of I. lacunosa. In the PRE‐only trial, 19 herbicide treatments were evaluated 4 and 7 weeks after PRE (WAP). The greatest control 7 WAP for I. lacunosa and E. crus‐galli was obtained with isoxaflutole + S‐metolachlor + metribuzin, but this treatment did not differ from some other programs containing similar herbicides (e.g., S‐metolachlor + mesotrione). Flumioxazin + pyroxasulfone, a treatment currently labeled in soybean, provided the greatest control (77%) of S. spinosa, but did not differ from isoxaflutole + S‐metolachlor + metribuzin (71%). Although new herbicide technologies that allow dicamba, 2,4‐D, mesotrione, or isoxaflutole may not necessarily improve control of all problematic weeds compared with currently labeled programs, increasing the herbicide sites of action applied in soybean systems will help manage the spread of herbicide resistance.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars will soon be available with stacked resistance to various herbicides, including glyphosate, glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4‐D, and several 4‐hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)–inhibiting herbicides. As many combinations of these herbicides have not been used in soybean preemergence (PRE) or postemergence (POST), two experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 at Keiser, AR, to evaluate various herbicide combinations for control of Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv., Ipomoea lacunosa L., and Sida spinosa L. In the Herbicide Programs trial, 25 herbicide programs were evaluated that consisted of PRE herbicides followed by POST herbicides 3 to 4 weeks after (WA) the PRE application (EPOST), or 6 to 7 WA the PRE application (LPOST). The programs that contained EPOST herbicides controlled I. lacunosa, S. spinosa, and E. crus‐galli ≥95% 2 WA EPOST. Based on orthogonal contrasts, future programs utilizing an auxinic or HPPD‐resistance trait did not perform better than currently labeled soybean herbicides for control and weed density of E. crus‐galli and S. spinosa, but future programs outperformed current programs for control of I. lacunosa. In the PRE‐only trial, 19 herbicide treatments were evaluated 4 and 7 weeks after PRE (WAP). The greatest control 7 WAP for I. lacunosa and E. crus‐galli was obtained with isoxaflutole + S‐metolachlor + metribuzin, but this treatment did not differ from some other programs containing similar herbicides (e.g., S‐metolachlor + mesotrione). Flumioxazin + pyroxasulfone, a treatment currently labeled in soybean, provided the greatest control (77%) of S. spinosa, but did not differ from isoxaflutole + S‐metolachlor + metribuzin (71%). Although new herbicide technologies that allow dicamba, 2,4‐D, mesotrione, or isoxaflutole may not necessarily improve control of all problematic weeds compared with currently labeled programs, increasing the herbicide sites of action applied in soybean systems will help manage the spread of herbicide resistance.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars will soon be available with stacked resistance to various herbicides, including glyphosate, glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4‐D, and several 4‐hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)–inhibiting herbicides. As many combinations of these herbicides have not been used in soybean preemergence (PRE) or postemergence (POST), two experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 at Keiser, AR, to evaluate various herbicide combinations for control of Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv., Ipomoea lacunosa L., and Sida spinosa L. In the Herbicide Programs trial, 25 herbicide programs were evaluated that consisted of PRE herbicides followed by POST herbicides 3 to 4 weeks after (WA) the PRE application (EPOST), or 6 to 7 WA the PRE application (LPOST). The programs that contained EPOST herbicides controlled I. lacunosa, S. spinosa, and E. crus‐galli ≥95% 2 WA EPOST. Based on orthogonal contrasts, future programs utilizing an auxinic or HPPD‐resistance trait did not perform better than currently labeled soybean herbicides for control and weed density of E. crus‐galli and S. spinosa, but future programs outperformed current programs for control of I. lacunosa. In the PRE‐only trial, 19 herbicide treatments were evaluated 4 and 7 weeks after PRE (WAP). The greatest control 7 WAP for I. lacunosa and E. crus‐galli was obtained with isoxaflutole + S‐metolachlor + metribuzin, but this treatment did not differ from some other programs containing similar herbicides (e.g., S‐metolachlor + mesotrione). Flumioxazin + pyroxasulfone, a treatment currently labeled in soybean, provided the greatest control (77%) of S. spinosa, but did not differ from isoxaflutole + S‐metolachlor + metribuzin (71%). Although new herbicide technologies that allow dicamba, 2,4‐D, mesotrione, or isoxaflutole may not necessarily improve control of all problematic weeds compared with currently labeled programs, increasing the herbicide sites of action applied in soybean systems will help manage the spread of herbicide resistance.

Key concepts: Metribuzin, Glufosinate, Dicamba, Metolachlor, Herbicide resistance, Weed control, Mesotrione, Glyphosate

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Herbicide Programs for Managing Troublesome Weeds Using New Soybean Technologies — Research Paper | ScholarLens