Abstract Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] that lack resistance to auxin herbicides [i.e., not genetically modified for resistance] have well-documented responses to those particular herbicides, with yield loss being probable. When a soybean field is injured by auxin herbicides, regulatory authorities often collect a plant sample from that field. This research attempted to simulate soybean exposures due to accidental mixing of incorrect herbicides, tank contamination, or particle drift. This research examined whether analytical testing of herbicide residues on soybean to aminocyclopyrachlor (ACP), aminopyralid, 2,4-D, or dicamba would be related to the visual observations and yield responses from these herbicides. ACP and aminopyralid were applied to R1 soybean at 0.1, 1, and 10 g ae ha−1; 2,4-D and dicamba were applied at 1, 10, and 100 g ae ha−1. Visual evaluations and plant sample collections were undertaken at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT), and yield was measured. The conservative limits of detection for the four herbicides in this project were 5, 10, 5, and 5 ng g−1 fresh weight of soybean for ACP, aminopyralid, 2,4-D, and dicamba, respectively. Many of the plant samples were non-detects, especially at lower application dosages. All herbicide concentrations rapidly declined soon after application, and many reached nondetectable limits by 14 DAT. All herbicide treatments caused soybean injury, although the response to 2,4-D was markedly lower than the responses to the other three herbicides. There was no apparent correlation between herbicide concentrations (which were declining over time) and the observed soybean injury (which was increasing over time or staying the same). This research indicated that plant samples should be collected as soon as possible after soybean exposure to auxin herbicides.