Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T01:17:03.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application Timing of Harvest Aid Herbicides Affects Soybean Harvest and Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph M. Boudreaux  and
James L. Griffin
Joseph M. Boudreaux
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted over 2 yr to evaluate soybean response to harvest aid herbicide treatments paraquat at 0.28 kg ai ha−1, paraquat with carfentrazone at 0.014 kg ai ha−1, and sodium chlorate at 6.72 kg ai ha−1. Indeterminate and determinate soybean cultivars were treated when moisture of seed collected from the uppermost four nodes of plants averaged 60, 50, 40, 30, and 20% (± 2%). For each soybean cultivar, the harvest aid treatment by application timing interaction was not significant, and data for harvest aid treatments were averaged. Application of harvest aid at 60% average seed moisture reduced yield for the maturity group (MG) IV indeterminate cultivar 15.4% compared with the nontreated; 100-seed weight was reduced 12.4%. Yield and seed weight were not negatively affected when harvest aid was applied at 50% average seed moisture and soybean was harvested 14 and 15 d before the nontreated control. Although planting date in the 2 yr for the indeterminate cultivar differed by 26 d, number of days from planting to harvest aid application at 50% average seed moisture was 112 and 116 d. For MG V and MG VI determinate cultivars, application of harvest aid at 60% average seed moisture reduced yield compared with the nontreated control 22 and 18.1%, respectively, and at 50% average seed moisture 15.6 and 4%, respectively; seed weight reductions of 8.9 to 33.3% accompanied the yield reductions of the two cultivars. Reduction in soybean yield and seed weight was not observed when harvest aid was applied at 40% average seed moisture, and harvest for the 2 yr was 8 and 9 d earlier for the MG V cultivar and 10 and 14 d earlier for the MG VI cultivar.

Se llevó a cabo una investigación durante dos años para evaluar la respuesta de la soya a los siguientes tratamientos de herbicidas auxiliares para la cosecha: paraquat a 0.28 kg ia ha-1, paraquat con carfentrazone a 0.014 kg ia ha-1 y sodium chlorate a 6.72 kg ia ha-1. Cultivares determinados e indeterminados de soya fueron tratados cuando la humedad de la semilla recolectada de los cuatro nudos superiores de los plantas promedió 60, 50, 40, 30 y 20% (+ o − 2%). Para cada cultivar de soya, la interacción entre el herbicida auxiliar de cosecha y el momento de aplicación no fue significativa, y por tal motivo, se promediaron los tratamientos de herbicidas auxiliares. La aplicación de un herbicida auxiliar de cosecha a un promedio de 60% de humedad de la semilla redujo el rendimiento para el cultivar indeterminado del Grupo de Madurez (MG) IV en 15.4%, comparado con el testigo no tratado; el peso de 100 semillas se redujo 12.4%. El rendimiento y el peso de la semilla no se vieron afectados negativamente cuando el herbicida auxiliar de cosecha se aplicó al 50% de humedad de la semilla y la soya se cosechó 14 y 15 días antes de la soya no tratada. Aunque las fechas de siembra en los dos años para el cultivar indeterminado difirió en 26 días, el número de días entre la siembra y la aplicación del herbicida auxiliar al 50% de humedad de la semilla fue 112 y 116 d. Para los cultivares determinados con MG V y MG VI, la aplicación del herbicida auxiliar de cosecha a 60% de humedad de la semilla redujo el rendimiento en 22 y 18.1% respectivamente, en comparación con el cultivar no tratado y a 50% de humedad de la semilla la reducción del rendimiento fue de 15.6 y 4% respectivamente. Reducciones de 8.9 a 33.3% en el peso de la semilla acompañaron la disminución del rendimiento de los dos cultivares. No se observó una disminución del rendimiento y el peso de la semilla cuando se aplicó el herbicida auxiliar de cosecha a 40% de humedad de la semilla y la cosecha para los dos años fue 8 y 9 días más temprana para el cultivar MG V y 10 y 14 días más temprana para el cultivar MG VI.

Keywords

Carfentrazoneparaquatsodium chloratesoybean, Glycine max L. Pers. ‘Asgrow 4403 RR’, ‘Asgrow 5903 RR’, ‘Asgrow 6202 RR’Application timingdesiccantdeterminate soybeanindeterminate soybeanseed moisture
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 38 - 43
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

Anonymous 2009. Soybean Production in Mississippi. Mississippi State University. http://msucares.com/index.html. Accessed: July 28, 2010. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1174/a1174w.htm.Google Scholar
Boudreaux, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2008. Harvest aids in indeterminate and determinate soybeans—application timing and value. Louis. Agri 51:26–27.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1973. Influence of weeds on soybean harvesting losses with a combine. Weed Sci. 21:520–523.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., Warnes, D. D., Somerhalder, B. R., and Weeks, S. A. 1969. Effect of weeds on harvesting efficiency in corn, sorghum, and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:438–441.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- and three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Soybean (Glycine max) seed quality and harvesting efficiency as affected by low weed densities. Weed Technol. 12:166–173.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Boudreaux, J. M., and Miller, D. K. 2010. Herbicides as harvest aids. Weed Sci. 58:355–358.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Jones, C. A., Etheredge, L. M. Jr., Judice, W. E., and Lanclos, D. Y. 2004. An overview of harvest aid research in sugarcane, soybeans, and corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 57:14.Google Scholar
Griffin, R. M., Poston, D. H., Shaw, D. R., and Smith, M. C. 2003. Economics of preharvest desiccants in maturity group III soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:274–275.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
McWilliams, D. A., Berglund, D. R., and Endres, G. J. 1999. Soybean Growth and Management. North Dakota State University Ext. Serv. Pub. A1174. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1174/a1174.pdf. Accessed: July 28, 2010.Google Scholar
Padgett, B., Schneider, R., and Whitam, K. 2003. Foliar-applied fungicides in soybean disease management. Louis. Agri 46:7–9.Google Scholar
Pedersen, P., Kumudini, S., Board, J., and Conley, S. 2007. Soybean growth and development. Pages 41–47. In Dorrance, A. E. ed. Using Foliar Fungicides to Manage Soybean Rust. Columbus, OH Department. of Plant Pathology Extension Publication, The Ohio State University. http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/Soyrust/2007edition/10-SoybeanGrowthandDevelopment.pdf. Accessed: March 11, 2010.Google Scholar
Philbrook, B. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1989. Soybean field losses as influenced by harvest delays. Agron. J. 81:251–258.Google Scholar
Potter, B. 2005. Triazole and strobilurin foliar fungicide effects on soybean disease suppression, senescence and yield. http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/SWMNPEST/05publications/05foliareffects.pdf. Accessed: July 2, 2009.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
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. SAS 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages. 1243–1246. in. Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. USDA AC-07-A-51. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp. Accessed: March 11, 2010.Google Scholar
Whigham, D. K. and Stoller, E. W. 1979. Soybean desiccation by paraquat, glyphosate, and ametryn to accelerate harvest. Agron. J. 71:630–633.Google Scholar
Willard, T. S. and Griffin, J. L. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) yield and quality responses associated with wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) control programs. Weed Technol. 7:118–122.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Smith, J. A. 2002. Influence of harvest-aid herbicides on dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) desiccation, seed yield, and quality. Weed Technol. 16:109–115.Google Scholar