Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:25:10.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dicamba use and Injury on Soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. E. Auch  and
W. E. Arnold
D. E. Auch
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Dep., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD 57007
W. E. Arnold
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Dep., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings, SD 57007
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1974 to 1977 at Redfield and Centerville, South Dakota, to evaluate the tolerance of soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] at different growth stages and five varieties of soybeans to dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and to determine dicamba residue in the foliage. Yield reduction occurred from applications when soybeans were flowering. Furthermore, germination was reduced by dicamba application at pod-fill. Dicamba residue was detected in foliage 7 days but not 18 days after application. Extent of dicamba use and drift occurrence was determined by a telephone survey of 159 farmers. Thirty-one percent of the farmers surveyed used dicamba in 1976.

Keywords

Driftgerminationvarietiesresidues
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 1978 , pp. 471 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the 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. Burnside, O. C. 1972. Tolerance of soybean cultivars to weed competition and herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chang, F. Y. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1968. Translocation of dicamba in Canada thistle. Weed Sci. 16:176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Chang, F. Y. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1971. Dicamba uptake, translocation, metabolism, and selectivity. Weed Sci. 19:113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fribourg, H. A. and Johnson, I. J. 1955. Response of soybean strains to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Agron. J. 47:171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hanway, J. J. and Thompson, H. E. 1967. How a soybean plant develops. Iowa State University Coop. Ext. Serv. Special report no. 53. 17 pp.Google Scholar
6. Hardcastle, W. S., Wilkinson, R. E., and Young, C. T. 1974. Metribuzin effects on seed constituents of soybean varieties. Weed Sci. 22:575–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Magalhaes, A. C., Ashton, F. M., and Foy, C. L. 1968. Translocation and fate of dicamba in purple nutsedge. Weed Sci. 16:240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Morton, H. L., Robison, E. D., and Meyer, R. E. 1967. Persistence of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and dicamba in range forage grasses. Weeds 15:268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Sabrosky, L. K. Sampling. Pages 37–44 in Byrn, Darcie, ed. Evaluation in extension. H. M. Ives and Sons Inc. Topeka, Kansas.Google Scholar
10. Smith, R. J. Jr. and Caviness, C. E. 1973. Differential responses of soybean cultivars to propanil. Weed Sci. 21:279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. South Dakota Agriculture 1975. 1976. South Dakota Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 94 pp.Google Scholar
12. South Dakota Department of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Regulations and Inspections. 1975. Ground sprayers job report summary. 22 pp.Google Scholar
13. Stanton, H. C. and Frans, R. E. 1971. Varietal response of soybeans to topical applications of dinoseb. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:76.Google Scholar
14. Thompson, L. Jr. and Egli, D. B. 1973. Evaluation of seedling progeny of soybeans treated with 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and dicamba. Weed Sci. 21:141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Wax, L. M., Knuth, L. A., and Slife, F. W. 1969. Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci. 17:388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayer, R. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron, and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar