Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:09:44.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence Herbicides and Cultivations for Soybeans (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Maurice R. Gebhardt
Maurice R. Gebhardt*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. Ed. Admin., Agric. Res., Soybean Production Systems Res. Unit, 102 Bldg. T-12, UMC, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Combined effects of herbicides, herbicide rates, and cultivation for weed control in soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Williams’] were studied using full and one-half rates of either chloramben (3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid) or alachlor [2-chloro-2′,6′-diethyl-N-(methoxymethyl)acetanilide] + linuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-methylurea] with no, one, and two cultivations. The full rate was 2.2 kg/ha for alachlor and chloramben and 0.70 kg/ha for linuron. Alachlor + linuron was better than chloramben, and the full rate was better than the one-half rate. One or two cultivations were better than no cultivation. Cultivations were more effective when used with alachlor + linuron than when used with chloramben or when used alone. Alachlor + linuron at the full rate with one or two cultivations produced the best soybean yields. A one-half rate of alachlor + linuron with one or two cultivations yielded the same as a full rate of alachlor + linuron alone or with one cultivation, chloramben at one-half rate with two cultivations, and chloramben at a full rate with two cultivations. Cultivations can be effective by increasing weed control and yields when herbicide rate or effectiveness has been reduced. Use of a cultivation in addition to the preemergence herbicides used in this study is necessary for improved weed control and yields.

Keywords

Herbicide combinationscultural practicesweed control systems
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , March 1981 , pp. 165 - 168
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

1. Agricultural Extension Service. 1968. Losses from weeds. University of Minnesota, U.S. Dep. Agric. Special Rep. No. 13. 13 pp.Google Scholar
2. Armstrong, D. L., Leasure, J. K., and Corbin, M. R. 1968. Economic comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control. Weed Sci. 16:369–371.Google Scholar
3. Dowler, C. C. and Parker, M. B. 1975. Soybean weed control systems in two southern coastal plain soils. Weed Sci. 23:198–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hauser, E. W., Cecil, S. R., and Dowler, C. C. 1973. Systems of weed control for peanuts. Weed Sci. 21:176–180.Google Scholar
5. Hauser, E. W., Jellum, M. D., Dowler, C. C., and Marchant, W. H. 1972. Systems of weed control for soybeans in the coastal plain. Weed Sci. 20:592–598.Google Scholar
6. McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1975. Cocklebur control in soybeans as affected by cultivars, seeding rates, and methods of weed control. Weed Sci. 23:386–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Moomaw, R. S. and Robison, L. R. 1972. Broadcast or banded chloramben with tillage variables in soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:502–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar