Soybean Injury Research Articles

Glyphosate-Resistant Weed Control and Soybean Injury in Response to Different PPO-Inhibiting Herbicides

<p>In Nebraska, 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) as well as acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibitor-resistant weeds occur in many soybean fields where herbicides from these modes-of-action have been frequently used in the past. Currently, the protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibitors are the only effective herbicides for POST control of both glyphosate- and ALS-inhibitor-resistant weeds in soybean. Greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2014 to evaluate the efficacy of PPO-inhibitors applied POST for the control of three glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds and potential for soybean injury, when applied at two growth stages. All herbicide treatments controlled 10- and 20-cm tall GR common waterhemp ≥ 95% at 21 DAT. GR giant ragweed and kochia were controlled 86 to 99% when treated at 10-cm height and 78 to 92% at 20-cm height by 21 DAT. Herbicide treatments reduced shoot biomass in the three GR weeds 88 to 100% when treated at 10-cm height and 73 to 100% when treated at 20-cm height, at 21 DAT. Soybean injury and shoot biomass data revealed that acifluorfen and lactofen were more injurious (≥ 17%), whereas fomesafen, and fomesafen plus glyphosate were relatively safer (< 10% injury). Overall, fomesafen and fomesafen plus glyphosate caused least injury to soybean and were more effective in controlling GR common waterhemp, giant ragweed, and kochia compared with acifluorfen and lactofen.</p>

Evaluation of Biostimulants Added to Post Emergence Herbicides in Soybean

There is little information on the effect of the addition of biostimulants such as AX13-04-4, Crop Booster or RR Soy Booster to post emergence herbicides in soybean under Ontario environmental conditions. A total of 69 field experiments were conducted in soybean at two locations (Ridgetown and Exeter, Ontario, Canada) to evaluate the effect of biostimulants added to various post emergence herbicides on crop injury, weed control and yield of soybean. There was minimal soybean injury (6% or less) from glyphosate, chlorimuron, imazethapyr, fomesafen or quizalofop applied alone or in combination with biostimulants. At 4 weeks after herbicide treatment (WAT), the addition of biostimulants to glyphosate, chlorimuron, imazethapyr, fomesafen or quizalofop did not affect weed control except for control of common ragweed which was increased 2% with the addition of RR Soy Booster to glyphosate + imazethapr, and the control of common lambs quarters which was increased 4% with the addition of Crop Booster to glyphosate + fomesafen. At 8 WAT, biostimulants evaluated had no effect on weed control except for Crop Booster added to glyphosate + fomesafen which increased green foxtail control 2% and Crop Booster added to glyphosate + chlorimuron, glyphosate + fomesafen and glyphosate + quizalofop which increased common lambs quarters control 1%, 3%, and 4%, respectively. The addition of biostimulants to the post emergence herbicides evaluated had no effect on soybean yield. Based on these results, the addition of biostimulants such as AX13-04-4, Crop Booster or RR Soy Booster to commonly used post emergence herbicides in Ontario has no significant effect on crop injury, weed control or yield of soybean.

Evaluation of Weed Management Programs and Response of FG72 Soybean to HPPD-Inhibiting Herbicides

Field experiments were conducted at two locations in Missouri in 2012 and 2013 to evaluate herbicide programs in 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibitor-resistant soybean, referred to as FG72 soybean, and their tolerance to four HPPD-inhibiting herbicides. At the Columbia location, PRE followed by (fb) POST and two-pass POST treatments provided 97% or greater control of all weeds except ivyleaf morningglory. At Moberly in 2012, PRE fb POST treatments provided 95% or greater control and 100% biomass reduction (BR) of glyphosate-resistant (GR) waterhemp, with the exception of isoxaflutole at 0.04 kg ha−1plusS-metolachlor at 0.6 kg ha−1plus metribuzin at 0.2 kg ha−1. In 2013, PRE fb POST treatments provided greater than 89% control and 93% BR. Two-pass POST treatments of isoxaflutole plus glyphosate always provided greater control and BR of GR waterhemp compared with glyphosate fb glyphosate. However, at Columbia, where glyphosate-susceptible weeds were present, there were no differences in control or BR between two-pass POST treatments. In the soybean tolerance experiment, isoxaflutole provided the lowest levels of injury. Applications of tembotrione at the 1× rate resulted in the greatest injury in both years. Topramezone at the 1× rate always provided less injury than tembotrione, but was always similar in BR. The 2× rates increased soybean injury over the 1× rate for the third trifoliate (V3) application, but not for the PRE and first-flower (R1) applications. V3 and R1 applications of isoxaflutole and mesotrione resulted in similar injury, height reduction, and BR to soybean 28 d after application in 2012 and 2013. Overall these results indicate that FG72 soybean could allow the use of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides such as mesotrione PRE along with isoxaflutole PRE and POST to provide an additional herbicide mechanism of action that was not previously available in soybean.

Weed control and crop tolerance of micro-encapsulated acetochlor applied sequentially in glyphosate-resistant soybean

Jhala, A. J., Malik, M. S. and Willis, J. B. 2015. Weed control and crop tolerance of micro-encapsulated acetochlor applied sequentially in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 973–981. Acetochlor, an acetamide herbicide, has been used for many years for weed control in several crops, including soybean. Micro-encapsulated acetochlor has been recently registered for preplant (PP), pre-emergence (PRE), and post-emergence (POST) application in soybean in the United States. Information is not available regarding the sequential application of acetochlor for weed control and soybean tolerance. The objectives of this research were to determine the effect of application timing of micro-encapsulated acetochlor applied in tank-mixture with glyphosate in single or sequential applications for weed control in glyphosate-resistant soybean, and to determine its impact on soybean injury and yields. Field experiments were conducted at Clay Center, Nebraska, in 2012 and 2013, and at Waverly, Nebraska, in 2013. Acetochlor tank-mixed with glyphosate applied alone PP, PRE, or tank-mixed with flumioxazin, fomesafen, or sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron provided 99% control of common waterhemp, green foxtail, and velvetleaf at 15 d after planting (DAP); however, control declined to ≤40% at 100 DAP. Acetochlor tank-mixed with glyphosate applied PRE followed by early POST (V2 to V3 stage of soybean) or late POST (V4 to V5 stage) resulted in ≥90% control of common waterhemp and green foxtail, reduced weed density to ≤2 plants m−2 and biomass to ≤12 g m−2, and resulted in soybean yields >3775 kg ha−1. The sequential applications of glyphosate plus acetochlor applied PP followed by early POST or late POST resulted in equivalent weed control to the best herbicide combinations included in this study and soybean yield equivalent to the weed free control. Injury to soybean was <10% in each of the treatments evaluated. Micro-encapsulated acetochlor can be a good option for soybean growers for controlling grasses and small-seeded broadleaf weeds if applied in a PRE followed by POST herbicide program in tank-mixture with herbicides of other modes of action.

Comparison of Glufosinate-Based Herbicide Programs for Broad-Spectrum Weed Control in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean

Because of the increasing number of glyphosate-resistant weeds, alternate herbicide-resistant crops and herbicides with different modes of action are required to protect crop yield. Glufosinate is a broad-spectrum POST herbicide for weed control in glufosinate-resistant crops, including soybean. The objective of this study was to compare herbicide programs with glufosinate applied singly at late-POST (LPOST) or sequentially at early POST (EPOST) followed by (fb) LPOST applications and PRE herbicides fb EPOST/LPOST glufosinate alone or tank-mixed with acetochlor, pyroxasulfone, orS-metolachlor in glufosinate-resistant soybean. A field experiment was conducted at the South Central Agriculture Laboratory in Clay Center, NE, in 2012 and 2013. Glufosinate applied in a single LPOST or sequential EPOST fb LPOST application controlled common lambsquarters, common waterhemp, eastern black nightshade, green foxtail, large crabgrass, and velvetleaf ≤ 82% and resulted in a weed density of 6 to 10 plants m−2by the end of the season. Flumioxazin-, saflufenacil-, or sulfentrazone-based premixes provided 84 to 99% control of broadleaf and grass weeds tested in this study at 15 d after PRE application and a subsequent LPOST application of glufosinate alone controlled broadleaf and grass weeds 69 to 93% at harvest, depending on the herbicide program and weed species being investigated. The PRE application of sulfentrazone plus metribuzin fb EPOST glufosinate tank-mixed with acetochlor, pyroxasulfone, orS-metolachlor controlled the tested broadleaf and grass weeds ≥ 90%, reduced density to ≤ 2 plants m−2, and reduced weed biomass to ≤ 10 g m−2and produced soybean yields of ≥ 4,450 and 3,040 kg ha−1in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Soybean injury was 0 to 20% from PRE or POST herbicides, or both and was inconsistent, but transient, during the 2-yr study, and it did not affect soybean yield. Sulfentrazone plus metribuzin applied PRE fb glufosinate EPOST tank-mixed with acetochlor, pyroxasulfone, orS-metolachlor provided the highest level of weed control throughout the growing season and increased soybean yield compared with a single LPOST or a sequential EPOST fb LPOST glufosinate application. Additionally, these herbicide programs provide four distinct mechanisms of action that constitute an effective weed-resistance management strategy in glufosinate-resistant soybean.

Response of Aryloxyalkanoate Dioxygenase-12 Transformed Soybean Yield Components to Postemergence 2,4-D

New trait technology incorporating 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) resistance in soybean provides an alternative method to control weeds. However, the effect of postemergence treatments of 2,4-D on aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12) soybean on injury and yield components has not been reported. Our objectives were to characterize the effect of 2,4-D (dimethylamine salt) rates (0, 1,120, and 2,240 g ae ha−1) and soybean growth stage (V5, R2, or V5 followed by R2) on AAD-12 soybean injury and yield components. Less than 3% soybean injury was observed when 2,240 g ha−1of 2,4-D was applied to R2 soybean, and less than 1% soybean injury was caused by 1,120 g ha−1of 2,4-D. Seed yield, seed mass, pod number, seed number, seed per pod, reproductive node number, pods per reproductive node, node number, and percent reproductive nodes were not affected by 2,4-D treatments when applied at the V5, R2, or the V5 followed by R2 soybean growth stage. This research demonstrates that soybean transformed with AAD-12 can tolerate foliar applications of 2,4-D at rates up to 2,240 g ha−1with no effect on soybean grain yield components.

Biologically effective rate of sulfentrazone applied pre-emergence in soybean

Walsh, K. D., Soltani, N., Hooker, D. C., Nurse, R. E. and Sikkema, P. H. 2015. Biologically effective rate of sulfentrazone applied pre-emergence in soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 95: 339–344. Sulfentrazone is a protoporphyrinogen (PPO)-inhibiting herbicide under evaluation for use in soybean in Ontario, Canada. The primary objective of this study was to determine the dose of sulfentrazone applied pre-emergence (PRE) needed to provide 50 and 90% control of redroot pigweed, common ragweed, common lambsquarters and green foxtail. Seven field trials were conducted over a 3-yr period (2007, 2008 and 2009) in southwestern Ontario to evaluate the efficacy of sulfentrazone applied PRE at doses ranging from 26 to 1120 g a.i. ha−1. The doses of sulfentrazone applied PRE to reduce redroot pigweed, common ragweed, common lambsquarters and green foxtail dry weight by 50% were 104, 139, 15 and 65 g a.i. ha−1; doses of 241, 514, 133 and 721 g a.i. ha−1of sulfentrazone were required for 90% reduction in above-ground biomass of those weed species, respectively. Sulfentrazone applied PRE caused soybean injury only at 560 and 1120 g a.i. ha−1, with 6 and 13% soybean injury at 4 wk after herbicide application (WAT), respectively. Weed control provided by sulfentrazone applied PRE at a dose of 600 g a.i. ha−1was sufficient to maintain 90% of the soybean yield compared with the weed-free control. Therefore, PRE application of sulfentrazone has the potential to provide excellent (>90%) control of selected weeds with minimal to no crop injury; however, weed control varied by species, and thus broad spectrum weed control is not feasible using sulfentrazone alone.

Detection of the onset of glyphosate-induced soybean plant injury through chlorophyll fluorescence signal extraction and measurement

In this study, chlorophyll fluorescence (ChlF) was used to detect the onset of soybean plant injury from treatment of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide. Thirty-six pots of nonglyphosate-resistant soybean were randomly divided into three groups and treated with different doses of glyphosate solutions. The three treatment groups were control (CTRL) group (with no glyphosate treatment), 0.25X group (treated with 0.217 kg·ae/ha solution of glyphosate), and 0.5X group (treated with 0.433 kg·ae/ha solution of glyphosate). Three kinds of fluorescence measurements, steady-state fluorescence spectra, Kautsky effect parameters, and ChlF-related spectral indices were extracted and generated from the measurements in the glyphosate treatment experiment. The mean values of these fluorescence measurements for each of the CTRL group, the 0.25X group, and the 0.5X group were calculated. Glyphosate-induced leaf injury was then analyzed by examining the separability of these mean values at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hours after the treatment (HAT). Results indicate that the peak position of far-red ChlF shows an obvious blue shift for glyphosate-treated soybean, and peak values of steady-state fluorescence spectra for the three groups can be significantly distinguished from each other at 48 HAT and later. Four Kautsky effect parameters, Fv, Fv/Fm, Area, and PI, are parameters sensitive to glyphosate treatment, showing some differences between the CTRL group and treated groups at 24 HAT, and significant differences among the three groups at and beyond 48 HAT. Moreover, ChlF-related spectral indices, R6832/(R675·R690) and R690/R655, are also shown to be useful in detection of the glyphosate injury, though they are less effective than the steady-state fluorescence spectra and the Kautsky effect parameters. Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that glyphosate-induced soybean injury can be detected in a timely manner by the ChlF measurements, and this method has the potential to be further developed into practical use.

Influence of Application Timings and Sublethal Rates of Synthetic Auxin Herbicides on Soybean

Synthetic auxin herbicides have long been utilized for the selective control of broadleaf weeds in a variety of crop and noncrop environments. Recently, two agrochemical companies have begun to develop soybean with resistance to 2,4-D and dicamba which might lead to an increase in the application of these herbicides in soybean production areas in the near future. Additionally, little research has been published pertaining to the effects of a newly-discovered synthetic auxin herbicide, aminocyclopyrachlor, on soybean phytotoxicity. Two field trials were conducted in 2011 and 2012 to evaluate the effects of sublethal rates of 2,4-D amine, aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, clopyralid, dicamba, fluroxypyr, picloram, and triclopyr on visible estimates of soybean injury, height reduction, maturity, yield, and yield components. Each of these herbicides was applied to soybean at the V3 and R2 stages of growth at 0.028, 0.28, 2.8, and 28 g ae ha−1. Greater height reductions occurred with all herbicides, except 2,4-D amine and triclopyr when applied at the V3 compared to the R2 stage of growth. Greater soybean yield loss occurred with all herbicides except 2,4-D amine when applied at the R2 compared to the V3 stage of growth. The only herbicide applied that resulted in no yield loss at either stage was 2,4-D amine. When applied at 28 g ae ha−1at the V3 stage of growth, the general order of herbicide-induced yield reductions to soybean from greatest to least was aminopyralid > aminocyclopyrachlor = clopyralid = picloram > fluroxypyr > triclopyr > dicamba > 2,4-D amine. At the R2 stage of growth, the general order of herbicide-induced yield reductions from greatest to least was aminopyralid > aminocyclopyrachlor = picloram > clopyralid > dicamba > fluroxypyr = triclopyr > 2,4-D amine. Yield reductions appeared to be more correlated with seeds per pod than to pods per plant and seed weight. An 18- to 26-d delay in soybean maturity also occurred with R2 applications of all synthetic auxin herbicides at 28 g ae ha−1except 2,4-D. Results from this research indicate that there are vast differences in the relative phytotoxicity of these synthetic auxin herbicides to soybean, and that the timing of the synthetic auxin herbicide exposure will have a significant impact on the severity of soybean height and/or yield reductions.

Weed control with postemergence glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-resistant soybean

Walsh, K. D., Soltani, N., Brown, L. R. and Sikkema, P. H. 2014. Weed control with postemergence glyphosate tank mixes in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1239–1244. Six field trials were conducted over a 3-yr period (2011, 2012 and 2013) in Ontario, Canada, to evaluate various postemergence (POST) glyphosate tank mixes for weed management in glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean. Herbicide treatments included glyphosate applied alone or mixed with acifluorfen, fomesafen, bentazon and thifensulfuron-methyl. Glyphosate tank mixtures with acifluorfen, fomesafen, bentazon and thifensulfuron-methyl caused GR soybean injury of up to 21, 11, 4 and 14% at 7 d after treatment (DAT), which was reduced to 5, 0, 0 and 2% by 28 DAT, respectively. Velvetleaf, green pigweed, common ragweed and common lambsquarters control ranged from 55 to 95, 93 to 100, 70 to 92 and 81 to 98% at 28 DAT respectively. Relative to glyphosate alone, tank mixtures with thifensulfuron-methyl provided equivalent to increased weed control, while acifluorfen, fomesafen and bentazon provided equivalent to reduced weed control. All herbicide tank mixtures resulted in higher yields (3.8–4.0 t ha−1) than the untreated check (2.7 t ha−1), and were generally equivalent to glyphosate alone (4.1 t ha−1). Results from this study indicate that the glyphosate tank mixtures evaluated did not provide a benefit over glyphosate alone.

Assessment of soybean injury from glyphosate using airborne multispectral remote sensing.

Glyphosate drift onto off-target sensitive crops can reduce growth and yield and is of great concern to growers and pesticide applicators. Detection of herbicide injury using biological responses is tedious, so more convenient and rapid detection methods are needed. The objective of this research was to determine the effects of glyphosate on biological responses of non-glyphosate-resistant (non-GR) soybean and to correlate vegetation indices (VIs) derived from aerial multispectral imagery. Plant height, shoot dry weight and chlorophyll (CHL) content decreased gradually with increasing glyphosate rate, regardless of weeks after application (WAA). Accordingly, soybean yield decreased by 25% with increased rate from 0 to 0.866 kg AI ha(-1) . Similarly to biological responses, the VIs derived from aerial imagery - normalized difference vegetation index, soil adjusted vegetation index, ratio vegetation index and green NDVI - also decreased gradually with increasing glyphosate rate, regardless of WAA. The VIs were highly correlated with plant height and yield but poorly correlated with CHL, regardless of WAA. This indicated that indices could be used to determine soybean injury from glyphosate, as indicated by the difference in plant height, and to predict the yield reduction due to crop injury from glyphosate.

Weed Management in Conventional- and No-Till Soybean Using Flumioxazin/Pyroxasulfone

Eleven field experiments were conducted over a 3-yr period (2010, 2011, and 2012) in conventional- and no-till soybean with a flumioxazin and pyroxasulfone premix. PRE and preplant applications were evaluated for soybean injury, weed control, and yield compared to standard herbicides. Early-season soybean injury from flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone ranged from 1 to 19%; however, by harvest, soybean yields were similar across labeled rates (160 and 200 g ai ha−1), standard treatments, and the nontreated control. Flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone provided excellent control (99 to 100%) of velvetleaf, pigweed species (redroot pigweed and smooth pigweed), and common lambsquarters across almost all rates tested (80 to 480 g ai ha−1). Common ragweed, green foxtail, and giant foxtail control increased with flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone rate. The biologically effective rates varied between tillage systems. The flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone rate required to provide 80% control (R80) of pigweed was 3 and 273 g ai ha−1under conventional- and no-till, respectively. For common ragweed, the R80was 158 g ai ha−1under conventional tillage; yet, under no-till, the rate was nonestimable. The results indicate that flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone can provide effective weed control as a setup for subsequent herbicide applications.

Influence of Application Timing and Glyphosate Tank-Mix Combinations on the Survival of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in Soybean

In recent years, glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed has become an increasingly problematic weed in soybean in Missouri and throughout many areas of the Midwest. Field trials were conducted in 2010 and 2011 to determine the influence of various application timings and glyphosate tank-mix combinations on the survival of GR giant ragweed in soybean. Glyphosate was applied alone and in combination with selected tank-mix combinations early POST (EPOST) to 10-, 20-, or 30-cm GR giant ragweed. Treatments received late POST (LPOST) applications approximately 3 wk after EPOST applications, once GR giant ragweed resumed growth. GR giant ragweed survival 2 wk after EPOST applications (2 WAEPOST) ranged from 60 to 100%. Glyphosate plus fomesafen applications to 10-cm plants resulted in 60% survival of GR giant ragweed, which was the lowest survival observed across all treatments and application timings. However, GR giant ragweed survival ranged from 37 to 98% 4 wk after LPOST applications (4 WALPOST). Glyphosate plus fomesafen applications to 10-cm plants resulted in 37% survival of GR giant ragweed 4 WALPOST, which was the lowest survival observed across all treatments and application timings. Few differences in soybean yields were observed between herbicide treatments within application timings in either year, and all herbicide treatments resulted in yields higher than the nontreated control. In 2011, soybean yields were reduced following glyphosate tank-mix combinations to larger plants. Overall, higher soybean injury and GR giant ragweed survival was observed in response to glyphosate tank-mix combinations made to taller plants. Results from this research indicate that additional methods of GR giant ragweed control, other than POST-only glyphosate tank-mix combinations, will be needed for effective management of GR giant ragweed in GR soybean.

Two-Pass Weed Management with Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

There is little information on the efficacy and profitability of two-pass weed control strategies in soybean when a preemergence (PRE) residual herbicide is followed by glyphosate applied late postemergence (LPOST) under Ontario, Canada environmental conditions. Ten field trials were conducted during 2011-2013 in Ontario, Canada to determine the level of weed control, yield and net returns of various preemergence/postemergence programs in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Crop injury was 2% or less with the herbicides evaluated except for chlorimuron + flumioxazin (PRE) and pyroxasulfone + flumioxazin (PRE) which caused 4% and 7% visible injury in soybean, respectively. A single application of glyphosate resulted in variable weed control (73% - 98%) while the sequential application of glyphosate provided excellent weed control (98% - 100%). The control of all weeds 8 WAA after the LPOST glyphosate application was equivalent regardless of the PRE herbicide applied (96% - 100%). Soybean yield was equivalent to the weed free control regardless of the PRE herbicide applied. Soybean yield was lower than the sequential application of glyphosate with chlorimuron or pyroxasulfone/flumioxazin PRE fb glyphosate LPOST. Generally net return with the two-pass programs was equivalent to the sequential application of glyphosate. Net returns were lower than the sequential application of glyphosate with chlorimuron or s-metolachlor + flumetsulam followed by glyphosate LPOST. Based on these results, a sequential application of glyphosate or a two-pass program of a preemergence residual herbicide followed by glyphosate LPOST are the preferred weed management programs in glyphosate-resistant soybean. The two-pass programs have the potential to reduce selection pressure for glyphosate-resistant weeds.

Tolerance of Soybean (<i>Glycine max</i> L.) to Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase Inhibitors and Very Long Chain Fatty Acid Synthesis Inhibitors Applied Preemergence

Nine field experiments were conducted in 2011 and 2012 at various locations in southern Ontario, Canada to determine the tolerance of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) to herbicides inhibiting protoporphyrinogen oxidase (Protox) and very long chain fatty acid (VLCFA) synthesis applied alone and in combination. Preemergence applications were evaluated for soybean injury, plant height, shoot dry weight, and yield in the absence of weed competition. Early-season soybean injury from the Protox inhibitors persisted 4 weeks after soybean emergence (WAE) with 3%, 5%, and 18% injury for flumioxazin, saflufenacil, and sulfentrazone, respectively. When Protox inhibitors were tank mixed with VLCFA inhibitors (i.e., dimethenamid-P, S-metolachlor, and pyroxasulfone), additive interactions were observed for injury with saflufenacil and sulfentrazone; whereas synergistic interactions were observed with flumioxazin. However, injury subsided over time decreasing from as much as 34% injury 1 WAE for the flumioxazin + S-metolachlor tank mix down to 9% injury 4 WAE. In general, when saflufenacil or flumioxazin were tank mixed with VLCFA inhibitors, greater than expected reductions in height and dry weight were observed indicating synergistic responses; while no interactive effects were detected with sulfentrazone and VLCFA inhibitor tank mixes. For the flumioxazin tank mixes that contained dimethenamid-P or S-metolachlor, the reduction in yield was greater than expected indicating synergistic interactive effects. Yet, all the demonstrated impacts were transient as the yield for soybean treated with any of the Protox inhibitor and VLCFA inhibitor tank mixes tested were similar to the untreated control. Therefore, usage restriction on these mixtures, based on perceived negative yield impact, should be lifted so the herbicides could be combined to expand weed control options.

Soybean Response to Dicamba Applied at Vegetative and Reproductive Growth Stages

Availability of soybean with dicamba resistance will provide an alternative weed management option, but risk of dicamba injury to sensitive crops from off-target movement and spray tank contamination is of concern. Research conducted at multiple locations and years evaluated soybean injury and yield response to POST applications of the diglycolamine salt of dicamba. Dicamba was applied at the two to three trifoliate stage (V3/V4) at 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, 70, 140, and 280 g ae ha−1(1/128 to 1/2 of the recommended use rate of 560 g ae ha−1). Soybean injury 7 d after application was 20% following dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1and increased to 89% at 280 g ha−1. At 14 d after application, injury for the same rates increased from 39 to 97%. In a separate study, dicamba was applied at first flower (R1) at 1.1, 2.2, 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, and 70 g ha−1(1/512 to 1/8 of use rate). Soybean injury 7 d following dicamba application was 19% at 1.1 g ha−1and increased to 64% at 70 g ha−1. For the same rates of dicamba, injury from 7 to 14 d after application increased no more than 4 percentage points. For dicamba rates in common for the timing studies, soybean injury 14 d after treatment was greatest for application at V3/V4, but the negative effect on mature soybean height and yield was greatest for application at R1. For dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1(1/128th of use rate), soybean yield was reduced 4% when applied at V3/V4 and 10% when applied at R1. For 17.5 g ha−1dicamba (1/32 of use rate), yield was reduced 15% at V3/V4 and 36% at R1. Based on yield reductions for 4.4 and 17.5 g ha−1dicamba, soybean at flowering was around 2.5 times more sensitive compared with vegetative exposure.

Response of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Yield Components to Dicamba Exposure

Exposure of soybean to dicamba can result in leaf malformation and sometimes yield loss, but it is unclear how yield components are affected by exposure to low quantities of this herbicide. The objectives were to characterize soybean injury and quantify changes in seed yield and yield components of soybean plants exposed to dicamba, and determine if seed yield loss can be estimated from visual injury ratings. Nine dicamba rates (0, 0.06, 0.23, 0.57, 1.1, 2.3, 4.5, 9.1, and 22.7 g ae ha−1) were applied at three growth stages (V2 – two trifoliates, V5-five trifoliates, or R2-full flowering soybean) to Beck's brand ‘342NRR’ soybean planted near Lafayette, IN, in 2009 and 2010 and near Fowler, IN, in 2009. Visually estimated soybean injury of 20% at the V2, V5, or R2 timing was 0.676 to 0.937 g ha−1dicamba at 14 d after treatment (DAT) and 0.359 to 1.37 g ha−1dicamba at 28 DAT. Seed yield was reduced by 5% from 0.042 to 0.528 g ha−1dicamba and a 10% reduction was caused by 0.169 to 1.1 g ha−1dicamba. The number of seeds m−2, pods m−2, reproductive nodes m−2, and nodes m−2were the most sensitive yield components. Path analysis indicated that dicamba reduced seeds m−2, pods m−2, reproductive nodes m−2, and nodes m−2which were the main causes of seed yield loss from dicamba exposure. The correlation of seed yield loss and visual soybean injury was significant (P < 0.0001) for both the V2 treatment timing (R2= 0.92) and the V5 and R2 treatment timings (R2= 0.91). Early-season injury rating of 8% at the V2 treatment and 2% at the V5 or R2 treatments caused 10% or more yield loss.

Soybean yield and yield components as influenced by the single and repeated flaming

Field experiments were conducted to study the impact of single and multiple flaming on crop injury, yield components, and yield of soybean. The goal of this experiment was to determine the number of the maximum flaming treatments which soybean could tolerate without any yield loss. The treatments consisted of a non-flamed control, and broadcast flaming conducted one time (at VC-unfolded cotyledon, V2-second trifoliate, and V5-fifth trifoliate), two times (each at VC and V2, VC and V5, and V2 and V5 stages), and three times (at VC, V2, and V5 stages) resulting in a total of eight treatments. All plots were kept weed-free for the entire growing season by hand hoeing. A propane dose of 50 kg ha−1 was applied with torches parallel to the crop row and at an operating speed of 4.8 km h−1 for all treatments. The response of soybean was measured as visual injury ratings (at 7 and 28 days after treatment – DAT) as well as effects on yield components and yield. Broadcast flaming conducted once (at VC or V5 stage), as well as twice (at VC and V5 stages) exhibited the lowest injury of about 8% at 28 DAT. Any treatment that contained flaming at V2 stage resulted in more than 70% injury at 28 DAT. The highest crop yields were obtained from the non-flamed control (3.45 t ha−1) and the plots flamed once at VC (3.35 t ha−1), V5 (3.32 t ha−1), and two times at VC and V5 (3.24 t ha−1), which were all statistically similar. Soybean flamed at V2 stage had lower yields (1.03 t ha−1 at V2, 0.46 t ha−1 at VC and V2, and 0.38 t ha−1 at V2 and V5). The lowest yields were in soybean flamed three times (VC, V2, and V5 stages), which yielded only 0.36 t ha−1. These results indicate that soybean could tolerate a maximum of two flaming treatments at VC and V5 growth stages per season without any yield reduction.

Response of Soybean Yield Components to 2,4-D

Soybean plants exposed POST to 2,4-D can have reduced seed yield depending on the dose and time of exposure, but it is unclear how 2,4-D affects specific yield components. Objectives were to quantify soybean injury, characterize changes in seed yield and yield components of soybean plants exposed to 2,4-D, and determine if seed-yield loss can be estimated from visual assessment of crop injury. Ten rates (0, 0.1, 1.1, 11.2, 35, 70, 140, 280, 560, and 2,240 g ae ha−1) of 2,4-D were applied to Becks brand 342 NRR soybean at three soybean growth stages (V2, V5, or R2). The soybeans were planted near Lafayette, IN and Urbana, IL in 2009 and 2010 and near Fowler, IN in 2009. Twenty percent visual soybean injury was caused by 29 to 109 g ha−12,4-D at 14 d after treatment (DAT) and 109 to 245 g ha−1at 28 DAT. Nonlinear regression models were fit to describe the effect of 2,4-D on seed yield and yield components of soybean. Seed yield was reduced by 5% from 87 to 116 g ha−1and a 10% reduction was caused by 149 to 202 g ha−12,4-D at all application timings. The number of seeds m−2, pods m−2, reproductive nodes m−2, and nodes m−2were the most sensitive yield components. Path analysis indicated that seeds m−2, pods m−2, main stem reproductive nodes m−2, and main stem nodes m−2were the most influential yield components in seed-yield formation. Seed-yield loss was significant (P < 0.0001) and highly correlated (R2= 0.95 to 0.99) to visual soybean injury ratings. A 10% seed-yield loss was caused by 35% soybean injury observed at 14 DAT, whereas a 10% seed-yield loss was a result of 40, 19, and 15% soybean injury observed at 28 DAT when soybean was exposed to 2,4-D at the V2, V5, and R2 growth stages, respectively.

Influence of Glyphosate or Glufosinate Combinations with Growth Regulator Herbicides and Other Agrochemicals in Controlling Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds

With the forthcoming release of the 2,4-D- and dicamba-resistance traits stacked with either glyphosate or glufosinate resistance, the use of 2,4-D or dicamba alone or in tank mix with glyphosate or glufosinate likely will increase the control of glyphosate-resistant weeds in soybean. There also is an increasing trend among soybean growers to apply POST herbicides in combination with fungicides, insecticides, and fertilizers to reduce trips over the field. Greenhouse experiments were conducted during 2011 and 2012 to evaluate glyphosate or glufosinate applications with growth regulator herbicides and other agrochemicals for the control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed and glyphosate-resistant common lambsquarters. In most cases, glyphosate or glufosinate application with 2,4-D or dicamba provided 80% or more control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed and glyphosate-resistant common lambsquarters. These studies demonstrate that performance of glufosinate alone and with agrochemicals was poor on glyphosate-resistant common lambsquarters. However, no differences in glyphosate-resistant common lambsquarters biomass were noted among treatments including glufosinate alone, glufosinate plus growth regulator herbicides, and glufosinate plus growth regulator herbicides plus agrochemicals. The agrochemicals lambda-cyhalothrin, manganese, and pyraclostrobin did not affect weed control by glyphosate or glufosinate combinations with growth regulator herbicides. Visible soybean injury was noted at 1 wk after treatment (WAT) only when glufosinate was applied with lambda-cyhalothrin or pyraclostrobin but no differences in visible injury were seen with these combinations at 3 WAT.