8 results
Weed Management Programs in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)
- Jason T. Beyers, Reid J. Smeda, William G. Johnson
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 16 / Issue 2 / June 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 267-273
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Field trials were conducted at two sites in both 1997 and 1998 to evaluate soybean response and weed control with glufosinate alone or combined with quizalofop, lactofen, imazethapyr, flumiclorac, or bentazon plus acifluorfen in narrow-row, glufosinate-resistant soybean. Soybean injury ranged from 0 to 21% at 2 wk after treatment (WAT) and from 0 to 5% by 4 WAT. Glufosinate alone at 0.29 and 0.4 kg ai/ha controlled velvetleaf, common waterhemp, common ragweed, morningglory species, and giant foxtail greater than 85% in all studies. Mixtures containing glufosinate and other herbicides controlled these species greater than 81% but did not improve control over glufosinate alone. Estimates of weed biomass closely reflected visual control evaluations. However, giant foxtail biomass was higher for mixtures of glufosinate plus lactofen, flumiclorac, or bentazon and acifluorfen, indicating possible antagonism of glufosinate activity. At both locations, soybean yields were similar among most treatments, but that of the glufosinate plus lactofen treatment was lower when compared with other treatments. Additional trials evaluated soybean response and weed control with a preemergence herbicide followed by glufosinate postemergence (POST), glufosinate applied once or twice POST, and mixtures of glufosinate plus imazethapyr or flumiclorac POST in wide-row soybean. Glufosinate applied twice controlled common waterhemp, morningglory species, prickly sida, common cocklebur, and giant foxtail up to 39% greater than did glufosinate applied once. The addition of imazethapyr, but not flumiclorac, to glufosinate improved weed control when compared with glufosinate alone.
Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max
- Jeremy T. Dirks, William G. Johnson, Reid J. Smeda, William J. Wiebold, Raymond E. Massey
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 48 / Issue 5 / October 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 628-639
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate crop response, weed control, Glycine max yield, and economic returns with sulfentrazone alone and tank-mixed with glyphosate, cloransulam, or chlorimuron at two preplant application timings in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant G. max. No significant crop injury was observed. Setaria faberi and Polygonum pensylvanicum control 5 wk after planting (WAP) was generally greater with sulfentrazone applied early preplant (EPP) than with sulfentrazone applied at planting (AP). When applied AP, glyphosate plus sulfentrazone provided greater S. faberi control than sulfentrazone alone. Control of Amaranthus rudis, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Ipomoea hederacea was greater in 1998 than in 1999 because of more timely early-season precipitation. Sulfentrazone-based programs provided 80 to 100% control of A. rudis in 1998, but control in 1999 ranged from 72 to 95% at Columbia and 46 to 83% at Novelty. Cloransulam alone, at either application timing, was the only treatment that provided greater than 80% control of A. artemisiifolia at each site in each year. All sulfentrazone-based treatments provided greater than 80% control of I. hederacea in 1998, but control was less in 1999 and ranged from 54 to 91%. Xanthium strumarium control ranged from 5 to 94% with sulfentrazone alone; however, the addition of cloransulam or chlorimuron provided 75 to 99% control regardless of application timing. A blanket application of glyphosate was made 6 WAP over all preplant herbicide treatments, and weed control 5 wk after this treatment was greater than 79% with all sulfentrazone-based treatments. Sulfentrazone plus cloransulam or chlorimuron plus glyphosate EPP or AP followed by (fb) glyphosate postemergence (POST) generally provided the greatest weed control. Overall weed control was generally greater with the use of residual herbicides vs. glyphosate alone, although yield and net returns were not always greater. A greenhouse study was conducted to determine if altering the preplant application timing reduced sulfentrazone injury to G. max. Treatment variables included herbicide rate, temperature during a preplant incubation period, and application timing. Glycine max, Zea mays, and Sorghum bicolor were used as indicator species. Sulfentrazone caused less injury to G. max, Z. mays, and S. bicolor in soils incubated at 30 C when applied 20 d before planting compared to 0 d before planting. Equivalent amounts of crop injury were noted with sulfentrazone applied 20 or 0 d before planting in soils incubated at 5 C with all indicator species.
Reduced rates of sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron and glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max
- Jeremy T. Dirks, William G. Johnson, Reid J. Smeda, William J. Wiebold, Raymond E. Massey
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 48 / Issue 5 / October 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 618-627
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate crop response, weed control, Glycine max yield, and economic returns of labeled (1×) and one-half labeled (½×) rates of early preplant (EPP) sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron and postemergence glyphosate, compared to glyphosate-alone systems in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant G. max. Treatments containing a 1× or ½× rate of EPP sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron with glyphosate followed by (fb) a postemergence treatment of glyphosate provided 80 to 100% control of Xanthium strumarium, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Polygonum pensylvanicum and 82 to 100% control of Setaria faberi and Amaranthus rudis if glyphosate was applied mid-postemergence (MPOST) or late postemergence (LPOST). Glyphosate alone EPP fb glyphosate postemergence or sequential postemergence treatments of glyphosate provided 77 to 100% control of S. faberi, A. artemisiifolia, and P. pensylvanicum. Glycine max yield did not significantly differ between treatments that contained 1× or ½× rates of sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron EPP with postemergence glyphosate or sequential glyphosate. Residual herbicides fb glyphosate reduced overall weed control variability but did not reduce the overall yield variability compared to glyphosate alone. Greater weed control, G. max yield, net incomes, and lower coefficient of variation (CV) of net incomes were generally associated with treatments that included both EPP and postemergence treatments vs. single herbicide applications. A greenhouse study was conducted to determine the optimal spray additive to maximize the foliar activity of sulfentrazone on three annual weeds. Sulfentrazone alone and in combination with a nonionic surfactant (NIS), methylated seed oil (MSO), crop oil concentrate (COC), and a silicone-based surfactant (SBS), with and without ammonium sulfate (AMS), were applied on two sizes of Abutilon theophrasti, P. pensylvanicum, and S. faberi. AMS provided little additional efficacy of sulfentrazone on S. faberi, but improved efficacy on A. theophrasti and P. pensylvanicum. SBS or MSO plus AMS with sulfentrazone generally provided the greatest efficacy on all species.
Contributors
-
- By Rony A. Adam, Gloria Bachmann, Nichole M. Barker, Randall B. Barnes, John Bennett, Inbar Ben-Shachar, Jonathan S. Berek, Sarah L. Berga, Monica W. Best, Eric J. Bieber, Frank M. Biro, Shan Biscette, Anita K. Blanchard, Candace Brown, Ronald T. Burkman, Joseph Buscema, John E. Buster, Michael Byas-Smith, Sandra Ann Carson, Judy C. Chang, Annie N. Y. Cheung, Mindy S. Christianson, Karishma Circelli, Daniel L. Clarke-Pearson, Larry J. Copeland, Bryan D. Cowan, Navneet Dhillon, Michael P. Diamond, Conception Diaz-Arrastia, Nicole M. Donnellan, Michael L. Eisenberg, Eric Eisenhauer, Sebastian Faro, J. Stuart Ferriss, Lisa C. Flowers, Susan J. Freeman, Leda Gattoc, Claudine Marie Gayle, Timothy M. Geiger, Jennifer S. Gell, Alan N. Gordon, Victoria L. Green, Jon K. Hathaway, Enrique Hernandez, S. Paige Hertweck, Randall S. Hines, Ira R. Horowitz, Fred M. Howard, William W. Hurd, Fidan Israfilbayli, Denise J. Jamieson, Carolyn R. Jaslow, Erika B. Johnston-MacAnanny, Rohna M. Kearney, Namita Khanna, Caroline C. King, Jeremy A. King, Ira J. Kodner, Tamara Kolev, Athena P. Kourtis, S. Robert Kovac, Ertug Kovanci, William H. Kutteh, Eduardo Lara-Torre, Pallavi Latthe, Herschel W. Lawson, Ronald L. Levine, Frank W. Ling, Larry I. Lipshultz, Steven D. McCarus, Robert McLellan, Shruti Malik, Suketu M. Mansuria, Mohamed K. Mehasseb, Pamela J. Murray, Saloney Nazeer, Farr R. Nezhat, Hextan Y. S. Ngan, Gina M. Northington, Peggy A. Norton, Ruth M. O'Regan, Kristiina Parviainen, Resad P. Pasic, Tanja Pejovic, K. Ulrich Petry, Nancy A. Phillips, Ashish Pradhan, Elizabeth E. Puscheck, Suneetha Rachaneni, Devon M. Ramaeker, David B. Redwine, Robert L. Reid, Carla P. Roberts, Walter Romano, Peter G. Rose, Robert L. Rosenfield, Shon P. Rowan, Mack T. Ruffin, Janice M. Rymer, Evis Sala, Ritu Salani, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, Mahmood I. Shafi, Roger P. Smith, Meredith L. Snook, Thomas E. Snyder, Mary D. Stephenson, Thomas G. Stovall, Richard L. Sweet, Philip M. Toozs-Hobson, Togas Tulandi, Elizabeth R. Unger, Denise S. Uyar, Marion S. Verp, Rahi Victory, Tamara J. Vokes, Michelle J. Washington, Katharine O'Connell White, Paul E. Wise, Frank M. Wittmaack, Miya P. Yamamoto, Christine Yu, Howard A. Zacur
- Edited by Eric J. Bieber, Joseph S. Sanfilippo, University of Pittsburgh, Ira R. Horowitz, Emory University, Atlanta, Mahmood I. Shafi
-
- Book:
- Clinical Gynecology
- Published online:
- 05 April 2015
- Print publication:
- 23 April 2015, pp viii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Notes on Contributors
-
- By David Amigoni, Mark Asquith, Jane Bownas, Adelene Buckland, Carolyn Burdett, Pamela Dalziel, Christine DeVine, Tim Dolin, Roger Ebbatson, Trish Ferguson, Shanyn Fiske, Simon Gatrell, Sophie Gilmartin, William Greenslade, Ann Heilmann, Michael Herbert, John Hughes, Rena Jackson, Elizabeth Langland, Sarah E. Maier, Phillip Mallett, Francesco Marroni, Jane Mattisson, Andrew Nash, K. M. Newton, Francis O’Gorman, John Osborne, Patrick Parrinder, Andrew Radford, Fred Reid, Angelique Richardson, Mary Rimmer, Peter Robinson, Dennis Taylor, Jenny Bourne, Jane Thomas, Herbert F. Tucker, Norman Vance, Roger Webster, Rebecca Welshman, Glen Wickens, Melanie Williams, Keith Wilson, T. R. Wright
- Edited by Phillip Mallett, University of St Andrews, Scotland
-
- Book:
- Thomas Hardy in Context
- Published online:
- 05 February 2013
- Print publication:
- 18 March 2013, pp ix-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Charles E. Argoff, Gerard A. Banez, Samantha Boris-Karpel, Barbara K. Bruce, Alexandra S. Bullough, Annmarie Cano, Victor T. Chang, Elizabeth A. Clark, Daniel J. Clauw, June L. Dahl, Tam K. Dao, Amber M. Davis, Courtney L. Dixon, Michael H. Ebert, Robin M. Gallagher, Gerald W. Grass, Carmen R. Green, Jay Gunkelman, Bradford D. Hare, Jennifer A. Haythornthwaite, Jaclyn Heller Issner, W. Michael Hooten, Mark P. Jensen, Mark E. Jones, Robert D. Kerns, Raphael J. Leo, Morris Maizels, Mary E. Murawski, Brooke Myers-Sorger, Akiko Okifuji, Renata Okonkwo, John D. Otis, Stacy C. Parenteau, Laura E. Pence, Donald B. Penzien, Donna B. Pincus, Ellyn Poltrock Stein, Wendy J. Quinton, Jeanetta C. Rains, M. Carrington Reid, Thomas J. Romano, Jeffrey D. Rome, Robert L. Ruff, Suzanne S. Ruff, Steven H. Sanders, Ingra Schellenberg, John J. Sellinger, Howard S. Smith, Brenda Stoelb, Jon Streltzer, Mark D. Sullivan, Kimberly S. Swanson, Gabriel Tan, Stephen Thielke, Beverly E. Thorn, Cynthia O. Townsend, Dennis C. Turk, Stephanie C. Wallio, Lawrence J. Weinberger, David A. Williams, Hilary Wilson
- Edited by Michael H. Ebert, Yale University, Connecticut, Robert D. Kerns, Yale University, Connecticut
-
- Book:
- Behavioral and Psychopharmacologic Pain Management
- Published online:
- 10 January 2011
- Print publication:
- 25 November 2010, pp ix-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Hideki Azuma, Susan Mary Benbow, Bettina Heike Bewernick, T. K. Birkenhäger, Hal Blumenfeld, Tom G. Bolwig, Stanley N. Caroff, Sidney S. Chang, Pinhas N. Dannon, Renana Eitan, Alan R. Felthous, Felipe Fregni, Gabor Gazdag, Nataliya Giagou, Mustafa M. Husain, Charles H. Kellner, Barry Alan Kramer, Galit Landshut, James Stuart Lawson, Bernard Lerer, Jerry Lewis, Dongchen Li, Colleen Loo, Michelle Magid, Stephan C. Mann, Limore Maron, W. Vaughn McCall, Shawn M. McClintock, Niall McCrae, Andrew McDonald, Nikolaus Michael, Paul S. Mueller, Alexander I. Nelson, Unnati D. Patel, Kathy Peng, Keith G. Rasmussen, William H. Reid, Joseph M. Rey, Barbara M. Rohland, Marina Odebrecht Rosa, Moacyr Alexandro Rosa, Oded Rosenberg, Peter B. Rosenquist, Thomas E. Schläpfer, Edward Shorter, Pascal Sienaert, Conrad M. Swartz, Kenneth Trevino, Gabor S. Ungvari, Walter W. van den Broek, Garry Walter, Julie A. Williams
- Edited by Conrad M. Swartz
-
- Book:
- Electroconvulsive and Neuromodulation Therapies
- Published online:
- 15 July 2009
- Print publication:
- 02 March 2009, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Related oscillation criteria for higher order self-adjoint differential and integro-differential equations§
- William T. Reid
-
- Journal:
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Section A: Mathematics / Volume 80 / Issue 3-4 / 1978
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 November 2011, pp. 333-345
- Print publication:
- 1978
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Within recent years considerable attention has been devoted to extensions of the classical Sturmian theory of real linear homogeneous differential equations of the second order. In particular, such extensions have included not only self-adjoint systems of differential equations, but also higher order self-adjoint differential and integro-differential equations. For problems in these latter categories, however, only limited attention has been given to detailed application of the general oscillation and comparison criteria. The present paper is devoted to this area, and, in particular, it is shown how existing criteria may be exploited to obtain comparison theorems between equations of different orders. Although the presented results have ready extensions to vector differential and integro-differential equations of higher order, [see, for example, 5,6,7], for simplicity attention is restricted to scalar equations. Section 2 is devoted to the statement of known general criteria of oscillation for self-adjoint equations of higher order, with special applications of these criteria presented in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 sketches the framework of corresponding applications for self-adjoint higher order integro-differential equations.