Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-c2bf7 Total loading time: 0.231 Render date: 2021-05-16T19:31:58.603Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Evaluation of cover crop sensitivity to residual herbicides applied in the previous soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] crop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2019

Derek M. Whalen
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Mandy D. Bish
Affiliation:
Extension Weed Specialist, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Aaron G. Hager
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA
Shawn P. Conley
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Jackson, TN, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Kevin W. Bradley
Affiliation:
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

In recent years, the use of cover crops has increased in U.S. crop production systems. An important aspect of successful cover crop establishment is the preceding crop and herbicide program, because some herbicides have the potential to persist in the soil for several months. Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of cover crops to common residual herbicides used in soybean production. The same field experiment was conducted in 2016 in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and repeated in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, and Missouri in 2017 to evaluate the potential of residual soybean herbicides to carryover and reduce cover crop establishment. Herbicides applied during the soybean growing season included acetochlor; acetochlor plus fomesafen; chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron; fomesafen; fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor; imazethapyr; pyroxasulfone; S-metolachlor; S-metolachlor plus fomesafen; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor; and sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor. Across all herbicide treatments, the sensitivity of cover crops to herbicide residues in the fall, from greatest to least, was forage radish = turnip > annual ryegrass = winter oat = triticale > cereal rye = Austrian winter pea = hairy vetch = wheat > crimson clover. Fomesafen (applied 21 and 42 days after planting [(DAP]); chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron and pyroxasulfone applied 42 DAP; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor; and sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor caused the highest visual ground cover reduction to cover crop species at the fall rating. Study results indicate cover crops are most at risk when following herbicide applications in soybean containing certain active ingredients such as fomesafen, but overall there is a fairly low risk of cover crop injury from residual soybean herbicides applied in the previous soybean crop.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Anonymous (2018) Flexstar® herbicide product label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld6BM003.pdf. Accessed: March 14, 2018Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S, Nyquist, W, Walker, W (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two-or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J (2006) Herbicide persistence and carryover. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension A3819 p.Google Scholar
Cornelius, CD, Bradley, KW (2017) Carryover of common corn and soybean herbicides to various cover crop species. Weed Technol 31:2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center (2008) National crop residue management survey. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/crm_results/. Accessed: January 12, 2018Google Scholar
Gevao, B, Semple, KT, Jones, KC (2000) Bound pesticide residues in soils: a review. Environ Pollution 108:314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetz, AJ, Lavy, TL, Gbur, EE (1990) Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci 38:421428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helling, C (2005) The science of soil residual herbicides. Pages 322 in Van Acker, RC, ed. Soil Residual Herbicides: Science and Management. Topics in Canadian Weed Science. Volume 3. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada: Canadian Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Jablonkai, I (2000) Microbial and photolytic degradation of the herbicide acetochlor. Int J Environ Anal Chem 78:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, DH, Talbert, RE (1993) Imazaquin, chlorimuron, and fomesafen may injure rotational vegetables and sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Technol 7:573577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karcher, DE, Richardson, MD (2003) Quantifying turfgrass color using digital image analysis. Crop Sci 43:943951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karcher, DE, Richardson, MD (2005) Batch analysis of digital images to evaluate turfgrass characteristics. Crop Sci 45:15361539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, JW, Matches, AG, Brown, CP, Karnezos, TP (1996) Comparison of interseeded legumes and small grains for cover crop establishment in cotton. Agron J 88:219222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, WC, McWhorter, CG (1986) Weed control in conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 41:365370Google Scholar
Martinez, CO, de Souza Silva, CMM, Fay, EF, Abakerli, RB, Maia, AdHN, Durrant, LR (2008) The effects of moisture and temperature on the degradation of sulfentrazone. Geoderma 147:5662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Climatic Data Center (2018) https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/. Accessed: March 2, 2018Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SI 1):3162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018) Sensitivity and likelihood of residual herbicide carryover to cover crops. Weed Technol:18Google Scholar
Pekarek, RA, Garvey, PV, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM, MacRae, AW (2010) Sulfentrazone carryover to vegetables and cotton. Weed Technol 24:2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D, Harvey, C, Resosudarmo, P, Sinclair, K, Kurz, D, McNair, M, Crist, S, Shpritz, L, Fitton, L, Saffouri, R (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:11171123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, KN, Zablotowicz, RM, Locke, MA, Koger, CH (2003) Cover crop tillage, and herbicide effect on weeds, soil properties, microbial populations, and soybean yield. Weed Sci 51:987994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggins, CW, Tranel, PJ (2012) Will the Amaranthus tuberculatus resistance mechanism to PPO-inhibiting herbicides evolve in other Amaranthus species. Int J Agron 2012:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p 315Google Scholar
Sharma, S, Banerjee, K, Choudhury, PP (2012) Degradation of chlorimuron-ethyl by Aspergillus niger isolated from agricultural soil. FEMS Microbiol Lett 337:1824CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, D, Ruark, M (2017) Considerations for 2017 cover crop interseeding. Integrated Pest and Crop Management. WCM NewsletterGoogle Scholar
Smith, DH (2015) Cover Crop and Herbicide Interaction. Master of Science thesis. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 92 pGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Nelson, R (2001) Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol 15:95102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, BE, Kells, JJ (2000) Effect of soil-applied herbicides on establishment of cover crop species. Weed Technol 14:596601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uri, ND (2000) Perceptions on the use of no-till farming in production agriculture in the United States: an analysis of survey results. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:263266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A, Barnes, A (1981) Simulation of herbicide persistence in soil; a revised computer model. Pest Manag Sci 12:123132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, J, Defelice, M, Sims, B (1993a) Influence of tillage on soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grass and legume forage crops in Missouri. Weed Sci 41:144149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, JD, Defelice, MS, Sims, BD (1993b) Soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grain and fiber crops. Weed Technol 7:625632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, EP, Shaner, DL, Westra, PH, Chapman, PL (2014) Dissipation and leaching of pyroxasulfone and S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 28:7281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, WW (1984) Response of weeds and herbicides under no-tillage conditions. Pages 152170 in Phillips, RE, Phillips, SH, eds. No-Tillage Agriculture: Principles and Practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing Co., IncCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, L, Van Eerd, LL, O’Halloran, I, Sikkema, PH, Robinson, DE (2015) Response of four fall-seeded cover crops to residues of selected herbicides. Crop Protect 75:1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluation of cover crop sensitivity to residual herbicides applied in the previous soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] crop
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Evaluation of cover crop sensitivity to residual herbicides applied in the previous soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] crop
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Evaluation of cover crop sensitivity to residual herbicides applied in the previous soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] crop
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *