Vegetable Soybean Tolerance to Bentazon, Fomesafen, Imazamox, Linuron, and Sulfentrazone

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin M. Williams ◽  
Randall L. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Herbicide Tolerance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Vegetable Soybean ◽  
Growth Reduction ◽  
Crop Tolerance

Poor weed control, resulting from limited herbicide availability and undeveloped integrated weed management systems, is a major hurdle to production of vegetable soybean in the United States. Vegetable soybean, the same species as grain-type soybean, has few registered herbicides because of unknown crop tolerance. Tolerance of as many as 128 vegetable soybean entries to a 2X registered rate of bentazon, fomesafen, imazamox, linuron, and sulfentrazone were quantified within 4 wk after treatment in field trials. Several grain-type soybean entries were included for comparison, including entries with known herbicide tolerance or sensitivity. Injury and seedling growth reduction to all vegetable entries was comparable to all grain-type entries for fomesafen, linuron, and sulfentrazone; and less than all grain-type entries for bentazon and imazamox. Responses of ten of the more widely used vegetable soybean entries were comparable to grain-type entries with known herbicide tolerance. Bentazon, fomesafen, imazamox, linuron, and sulfentrazone pose no greater risk of adverse crop response to vegetable soybean germplasm than the grain-type soybean to which they have been applied for years. Since initiation of this research, fomesafen, imazamox, and linuron are now registered for use on the crop in the United States. Development of integrated weed management systems for vegetable soybean would benefit from additional herbicide registrations.

scholarly journals Carrots and Sticks: Incentives and Regulations for Herbicide Resistance Management and Changing Behavior

Weed Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (SP1) ◽  
pp. 627-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Barrett ◽  
Michael Barrett ◽  
John Soteres ◽  
David Shaw
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Herbicide Tolerance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Agricultural Community

Although the problem of herbicide resistance is not new, the widespread evolution of glyphosate resistance in weed species such as Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeriS. Wats.), common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudisSauer), and kochia [Kochia scoparia(L.) Schrad.] raised awareness throughout the agricultural community of herbicide resistance as a problem. Glyphosate-resistant weeds resulted in the loss of a simple, single herbicide option to control a wide spectrum of weeds that gave efficacious and economical weed management in corn (Zea maysL.), soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.], and cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.) crops engineered for tolerance to this herbicide and planted over widespread areas of the South and Midwest of the United States. Beyond these crops, glyphosate is used for vegetation management in other cropping systems and in noncrop areas across the United States, and resistance to this herbicide threatens its continued utility in all of these situations. This, combined with the development of multiple herbicide-resistant weeds and the lack of commercialization of herbicides with new mechanisms of action over the past years (Duke 2012), caused the weed science community to realize that stewardship of existing herbicide resources, extending their useful life as long as possible, is imperative. Further, while additional herbicide tolerance traits are being incorporated into crops, weed management in these crops will still be based upon using existing, old, herbicide chemistries.

Response of soybean and corn to halauxifen-methyl

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-618
Author(s):  
Jessica Quinn ◽  
Nader Soltani ◽  
Jamshid Ashigh ◽  
David C. Hooker ◽  
Darren E. Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Current Application ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
No Till ◽  
Lower Biomass

AbstractPreplant (PP) herbicide applications are an important tool within an integrated weed management system, specifically in no-till production. An understanding of crop tolerance regarding PP applications is important for effectively integrating a new herbicide into no-till cropping systems. Twelve field trials (six in corn and six in soybean) were conducted over a 2-yr period (2018 and 2019) near Exeter and Ridgetown, ON. The purpose of these studies was to evaluate the tolerance of soybean and corn to halauxifen-methyl applied PP, PRE, or POST at the registered rate (5 g a.i. ha−1) and twice the registered rate (10 g a.i. ha−1), hereafter referred to as the 1× and 2× rate, respectively. All trials were kept weed-free throughout the growing season to remove the confounding effect of weed interference. Halauxifen-methyl applied 14 d preplant (DPP), 7 DPP, 1 DPP, and 5 d after seeding (DAS) at the 1× and 2× rates caused ≤10% visible soybean injury. In contrast, halauxifen-methyl applied POST (cotyledon–unifoliate stage, VE-VC) caused 67% to 87% visible soybean injury, a 50% to 53% reduction in height, 65% to 81% decrease in population, 56% to 67% lower biomass, and 53% to 63% decline in yield. Halauxifen-methyl applied 10 DPP, 5 DPP, 1 DPP, 5 DAS, and POST (spike–one leaf stage, VE-V1) at the 1× and 2× rate caused ≤3% visible corn injury and caused no effect on corn height or biomass. Halauxifen-methyl applied at VE-V1 at the 2× rate reduced corn yield 10%. Based on these studies, the current application restriction of 7 DPP in soybean and 5 DPP in corn is conservative and could be expanded. Expanding the application window of halauxifen-methyl would increase the utility of this herbicide for producers.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control: Revisiting Data Analysis

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (SP1) ◽  
pp. 188-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Avishek Datta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
The United States ◽  
Growth Cycle ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Yield Losses

There is an ever-larger need for designing an integrated weed management (IWM) program largely because of the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, not only in the United States but also worldwide. An IWM program involves a combination of various methods (cultural, mechanical, biological, genetic, and chemical) for effective and economical weed control (Swanton and Weise 1991). One of the first steps in designing an IWM program is to identify thecritical period for weed control(CPWC), defined as a period in the crop growth cycle during which weeds must be controlled to prevent crop yield losses (Zimdahl 1988).

Biological Control and Its Integration in Weed Management Systems for Purple and Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundusandC. esculentus)

1987 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharad C. Phatak ◽  
M. Brett Callaway ◽  
Charles S. Vavrina
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Biological Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Biological Control Of Weeds ◽  
Yellow Nutsedge ◽  
Living Organisms ◽  
Vast Area ◽  
Classical Strategy

Observations of the effects of living organisms on weeds dates from 1795 when an insect,Dactylopius ceylonicus, was introduced for drooping pricklypear (Opuntia vulgarisMiller) control over a vast area. Since that time, biological control of weeds employed mainly the classical strategy of introducing natural enemies from areas of co-evolution. Self-perpetuation and dissemination of these introduced enemies was essential to suppress successfully the weed below economic levels. This classical tactic is suited particularly for weeds that are distributed widely in less intensively cropped or noncropped areas. Guidelines to introduce foreign organisms for biological control of weeds in the United States have been established.

scholarly journals Weed management using crop competition in the United States: A review

2017 ◽  
Vol 95 ◽  
pp. 31-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Jha ◽  
Vipan Kumar ◽  
Rakesh K. Godara ◽  
Bhagirath S. Chauhan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Crop Competition

Alternatives to Atrazine for Weed Management in Processing Sweet Corn

Weed Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zubeyde Filiz Arslan ◽  
Martin M. Williams ◽  
Roger Becker ◽  
Vincent A. Fritz ◽  
R. Ed Peachey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Production Areas

Atrazine has been the most widely used herbicide in North American processing sweet corn for decades; however, increased restrictions in recent years have reduced or eliminated atrazine use in certain production areas. The objective of this study was to identify the best stakeholder-derived weed management alternatives to atrazine in processing sweet corn. In field trials throughout the major production areas of processing sweet corn, including three states over 4 yr, 12 atrazine-free weed management treatments were compared to three standard atrazine-containing treatments and a weed-free check. Treatments varied with respect to herbicide mode of action, herbicide application timing, and interrow cultivation. All treatments included a PRE application of dimethenamid. No single weed species occurred across all sites; however, weeds observed in two or more sites included common lambsquarters, giant ragweed, morningglory species, velvetleaf, and wild-proso millet. Standard treatments containing both atrazine and mesotrione POST provided the most efficacious weed control among treatments and resulted in crop yields comparable to the weed-free check, thus demonstrating the value of atrazine in sweet corn production systems. Timely interrow cultivation in atrazine-free treatments did not consistently improve weed control. Only two atrazine-free treatments consistently resulted in weed control and crop yield comparable to standard treatments with atrazine POST: treatments with tembotrione POST either with or without interrow cultivation. Additional atrazine-free treatments with topramezone applied POST worked well in Oregon where small-seeded weed species were prevalent. This work demonstrates that certain atrazine-free weed management systems, based on input from the sweet corn growers and processors who would adopt this technology, are comparable in performance to standard atrazine-containing weed management systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document