Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T02:41:17.457Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Herbicide programs for the termination of grass and broadleaf cover crop species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2019

Derek M. Whalen*
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MOUSA
Mandy D. Bish
Affiliation:
Extension Weed Specialist, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MOUSA
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, INUSA
Shawn P. Conley
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WIUSA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MSUSA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ARUSA
Kevin W. Bradley
Affiliation:
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MOUSA
*
Author for correspondence: Derek M. Whalen, Division of Plant Sciences, 108 Waters Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. (Email: derek.whalen@basf.com)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of cover crops in soybean production systems has increased in recent years. There are many questions surrounding cover crops—specifically about benefits to crop production and most effective herbicides for spring termination. No studies evaluating cover crop termination have been conducted across a wide geographic area, to our knowledge. Therefore, field experiments were conducted in 2016 and 2017 in Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin for spring termination of regionally specific cover crops. Glyphosate-, glufosinate-, and paraquat-containing treatments were applied between April 15 and April 29 in 2016 and April 10 and April 20 in 2017. Visible control of cover crops was determined 28 days after treatment. Glyphosate-containing herbicide treatments were more effective than paraquat- and glufosinate-containing treatments, providing 71% to 97% control across all site years. Specifically, glyphosate at 1.12 kg ha−1 applied alone or with 2,4-D at 0.56 kg ha−1, saflufenacil at 0.025 kg ha−1, or clethodim at 0.56 kg ha−1 provided the most effective control on all grass cover crop species. Glyphosate-, paraquat-, or glufosinate-containing treatments were generally most effective on broadleaf cover crop species when applied with 2,4-D or dicamba. Results from this research indicate that proper herbicide selection is crucial to successfully terminate cover crops in the spring.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 
Figure 0

Table 1. Site characteristics for field trials conducted in 2016 and 2017.

Figure 1

Table 2. Monthly rainfall compared with the 30-yr averages at all trial locations from April through October in 2016 and 2017.

Figure 2

Table 3. Source of materials used in the experiments.

Figure 3

Table 4. Height and stage of cover crops at herbicide application.

Figure 4

Figure 1. Average cereal rye control across 8 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 5

Figure 2. Average annual ryegrass control across 8 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Average winter wheat control across 7 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 7

Figure 4. Average triticale control across 6 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 8

Figure 5. Average control of grass cover crop species across 8 site-years in Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Bars with the same letter are not different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). Abbreviation: DAT, days after treatment.

Figure 9

Figure 6. Average hairy vetch control across 8 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 10

Figure 7. Average Austrian winter pea control across 5 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 11

Figure 8. Average biomass reduction of crimson clover across 3 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median. Biomass reduction was calculated by dividing the differences between the treated and nontreated plots by the nontreated plot values.

Figure 12

Figure 9. Average turnip control across 2 site-years. Mean control lines in red with the same letter are not significantly different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). The box represents the middle 50% of the data set, whereas the left and right whiskers represent 25% and 75% of the data set, respectively. X denotes an outlier; black bar within box denotes the median.

Figure 13

Figure 10. Average control of broadleaf cover crop species across 8 site-years in Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Bars with the same letter are not different, based on Tukey’s honestly significant difference test (P < 0.05). Abbreviation: DAT, days after treatment.