Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:48:13.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pitted morningglory interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1997 through 1999 to evaluate interspecific interference between pitted morningglory at 0, 10, 16, and 62 plants m−2 and drill-seeded, glyphosate-resistant soybean as influenced by soybean population and a single glyphosate application of 1.12 kg ai ha−1. Photosynthetic rate of soybean was not influenced by pitted morningglory density or glyphosate use 2 wk after treatment (WAT). Photosynthetic rate of soybean 12 WAT was reduced by 21 and 91% with 62 treated and untreated pitted morningglory plants m−2, respectively, whereas 10 treated and untreated pitted morningglory plants m−2 had no effect on the soybean photosynthetic rate. Pitted morningglory photosynthetic rate 2 and 12 WAT was reduced by 64 and 80%, respectively, when treated with glyphosate. The reduction in the photosynthetic rate of glyphosate-treated pitted morningglory was partially attributed to shading by soybean, whereas untreated plants were fully exposed to sunlight. Glyphosate-treated pitted morningglory at 10 and 16 plants m−2 did not reduce the rate of soybean leaf area index (LAI) accumulation; however, when the density was increased to 62 pitted morningglory plants m−2, soybean LAI decreased from 1.19 to 0.88 for each accumulated 100 growing degree days. Pitted morningglory produced a maximum of 24 million seeds ha−1 in the absence of glyphosate with 217,000 soybean plants ha−1. Pitted morningglory seed production declined with increasing soybean seeding rate in the absence of glyphosate, with a 41% reduction occurring when soybean population increased from 217,000 to 521,000 plants ha−1. Seed production of treated pitted morningglory ranged from 380,000 to 700,000 seeds ha−1. Soybean seed yield was not influenced by pitted morningglory density when treated with glyphosate. Untreated pitted morningglory at 10, 16, and 62 plants m−2 reduced soybean seed yield by 47, 62, and 81%, respectively. Competitiveness of untreated soybean increased with soybean seeding rate, resulting in 22% less yield loss with 521,000 than with 217,000 plants ha−1. Soybean seed yield was not reduced by 10 and 16 glyphosate-treated pitted morningglory plants m−2, but a 9% loss in yield occurred with 62 pitted morningglory plants m−2. Averaged over all pitted morningglory densities, glyphosate-treated pitted morningglory failed to reduce soybean seed yield at each of the three soybean densities. Following a single application of glyphosate, no apparent benefit was noted from increasing the soybean population above 217,000 plants ha−1.

Keywords

Glyphosatepitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAsoybean, Glycine max L. Merr. ‘Delta King 5961 Roundup Ready®’Base temperaturemorningglory competitiondrill-seeded soybeangrowing degree dayslight interception

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2002, pp. 26 - 33
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Baldwin, F. L. and Hall, S. 1992. University of Arkansas Soybean Weed Control Program User's Guide. Little Rock, AR: Cooperative Extension Service. 15 p.Google Scholar
Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Vories, E. D. 2000. Optimizing soybean plant population for a short-season production system in the Southern USA. Crop Sci. 40:757–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Paul, R. N., and Elmore, C. D. 2000. Leaf morphology, herbicide droplet spread, and response of morningglory species to herbicides used in transgenic and conventional crops. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 40:81–82.Google Scholar
Cordes, R. C. and Bauman, T. T. 1984. Field competition between ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:364–370.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:290–325.Google Scholar
Eaton, B. J., Feltner, K. C., and Russ, O. G. 1973. Venice mallow competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 21:89–94.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1983. Longevity of weed seed after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50-year buried-seed study. Weed Sci. 31:264–270.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stage of Soybean Development. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Special Rep. 80. 12 p.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. 1998. Differential response of palmleaf morniningglory (Ipomoea wrightii) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) to flooding. Weed Sci. 46:217–224.Google Scholar
Howe, O. W. III and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci. 35:185–193.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keisling, T. C., Oliver, L. R., Crowley, R. H., and Baldwin, F. L. 1984. Potential use of response surface analyses for weed management in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:552–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendig, J. A., Barham, R. L., Ezell, P. M., and Swims, P. A. 1998. Pre-post versus total post weed competition issues. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:1–2.Google Scholar
Kitchen, L. M., Witt, W. W., and Rieck, C. E. 1981. Inhibition of chlorophyll accumulation by glyphosate. Weed Sci. 29:513–516.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. 1994. Weed Biology, Interference, and Plant Growth Modeling. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arkansas. 140 p.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8:17–22.Google Scholar
Liebl, R. A. and Norman, M. A. 1991. Mechanism of clomazone selectivity in corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 39:329–332.Google Scholar
MacKinney, G. 1941. Absorption of light by chlorophyll solutions. J. Biol. Chem. 140:315–322.Google Scholar
Mathis, D. W. 1977. Comparative Competition and Control of Selected Morningglory Species in Soybeans. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arkansas. 92 p.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Weed control using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10:431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Banks, P. A., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Shade development effects on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 34:711–717.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybean. I. Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 24:482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, L. R. and Barrentine, W. L. 1976. Common cocklebur—competition and control. Weeds Today 7:16–19.Google Scholar
Parvez, A. Q., Gardner, F. P., and Boote, K. J. 1989. Determinate- and indeterminate-type soybean cultivar responses to pattern, density, and planting date. Crop Sci. 29:150–157.Google Scholar
Peters, E. J., Gedhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 12:285–289.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1997. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements through 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS Stat. User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed, Volume II. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1993. Flowering patterns, seed production, and somatic polymorphism of three weed species. Weed Sci. 41:418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurtleff, J. L. and Coble, H. D. 1985. Interference of certain broadleaf weed species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:654–657.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. 1996. Effect of Rate and Application Timing of Glyphosate to Control Sicklepod and Other Problem Weeds of the Mississippi Delta. M.S. thesis. University of Arkansas. 116 p.Google Scholar
Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M., and Byth, D. E. 1966. Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58:99–102.Google Scholar
Weber, C. R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Competitive relationship in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron. J. 49:440–444.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:169–174.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. X., Wang, R. F., and Hesketh, J. D. 1995. Separating photoperiod and temperature effects on growing degree day requirement for floral events in soybean. Biotronics 24:59–64.Google Scholar