Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T09:22:57.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Combinations for Weed Management in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lisa C. Gonzini ,
Stephen E. Hart  and
Loyd M. Wax
Lisa C. Gonzini
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Stephen E. Hart*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hart@aesop.rutgers.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1995 and 1996 at DeKalb and Urbana, IL, to evaluate weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant soybean planted in rows 76 cm wide. These experiments compared weed control using preemergence (PRE) herbicides followed by glyphosate or postemergence (POST) tank-mix combinations of glyphosate and acetolactate-synthase-inhibiting herbicides with glyphosate applied alone at 0.63 kg ae/ha in single or sequential applications. Overall, the use of a tank-mix partner or a PRE herbicide followed by glyphosate improved weed control compared to a single application of glyphosate. However, weed control with these treatments was not better than with sequential applications of glyphosate. Control of giant foxtail exceeded 90% for single applications of glyphosate except at DeKalb in 1995 when late emergence of giant foxtail occurred after POST applications had been made. A PRE grass herbicide or a late postemergence (LPOST) application of glyphosate was necessary for season-long control of late-emerging giant foxtail. Tank-mixing glyphosate with imazethapyr, cloransulammethyl, and CGA-277476 or applying glyphosate LPOST following these herbicides improved giant foxtail control compared with these herbicides applied alone. A single application of glyphosate controlled common lambsquarters 88% or greater in two of three trials. At Urbana in 1995, a single application of glyphosate controlled common lambsquarters 78% compared to 88 to 96% control with PRE herbicides followed by glyphosate or sequential applications of glyphosate. Velvetleaf control with a single application of glyphosate ranged from 55 to 78%. A PRE application of chlorimuron + metribuzin, cloransulammethyl, or sulfentrazone followed by glyphosate POST, as well as sequential applications of glyphosate, consistently improved velvetleaf control compared to a single application of glyphosate. In some cases, adding glyphosate to a POST application of imazethapyr or CGA-277476 improved control of velvetleaf but decreased velvetleaf control when added to cloransulammethyl.

Keywords

glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide-resistant cropsABUTHAMATACHEALSETFAALS, acetolactate synthaseDAT, days after treatmentLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 354 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Current address of S. E. Hart: Assistant Professor, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.

References

Literature Cited

Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., Beighley, D. H., et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35:1461–1467.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E., Hager, A. G., and Maxwell, D. J. 1994. Weed control in glyphosate resistant soybeans. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 51:232–233.Google Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol. 8:129–133.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Annual weed control with glyphosate at several rates, weed sizes, and spray volumes. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 51:365–366.Google Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, J. G., Barry, G. F., and Kishore, G. M. 1989. The herbicide glyphosate. BioFactors 2:17–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Peterson, D. E., Claassen, M. M., Martin, V. L., Stahlman, P. W., and Geier, P. W. 1995. Performance of glyphosate tolerant soybean weed control systems in Kansas. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:43–44.Google Scholar
Steinrucken, H. and Amrhein, N. 1980. The herbicide glyphosate is a potent inhibitor of 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 94:1207–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanLieshout, L. A., Loux, M. M., and Kuzmak, B. R. 1996. Characterizing the nature of interactions between glyphosate and preemergence soybean herbicides. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:24.Google Scholar