Next Article in Journal
Effect of Different Foliar Particle Films (Kaolin and Zeolitite) on Chemical and Sensory Properties of Olive Oil
Previous Article in Journal
Data-Driven Artificial Intelligence (AI) Algorithms for Modelling Potential Maize Yield under Maize–Legume Farming Systems in East Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/agronomy12123086
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Response of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides and Combinations of Cytokinin Mixtures

by
Hunter D. Bowman
*,
Huntington T. Hydrick
,
Jason A. Bond
and
Thomas W. Allen
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38772, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(12), 3086; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123086
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 30 November 2022 / Accepted: 2 December 2022 / Published: 6 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Weed Resistance to Herbicides: Assessing and Finding Solutions for a Complex Problem)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A field study was conducted in 2015 and 2016 in Stoneville, MS, to evaluate the influence of cytokinin products on soybean injury and weed control when combined with common POST soybean herbicide treatments. Cytokinin treatments included no cytokinin mixture and two formulated cytokinin mixtures (kinetin-1 and kinetin-2) applied at 0.000227 kg ai ha−1. Herbicide treatments were no herbicide, glyphosate at 1.37 kg ae ha−1 alone and in combination with S-metolachlor at 1.42 kg ai ha−1 or fomesafen 0.395 kg ai ha−1. The addition of cytokinin treatments had no impact on soybean injury, plant height, or yield. Glyphosate plus fomesafen provided the greatest level of Palmer amaranth control, between 84 and 67%., 7 days and 28 days after treatment, respectively. Barnyardgrass control with glyphosate plus fomesafen was antagonized by one of two cytokinin products. To prevent possible reductions in herbicide efficacy, tank mixtures with cytokinin products should not be applied to soybean in POST herbicide applications.

1. Introduction

Even though there are numerous weeds that impact soybean production in the southern U.S., Palmer amaranth [Amaranthus palmeri L. Wats.] has been ranked as one of the most troublesome weeds in the southern U.S. since the 1970s [1,2,3]. By 2013, Palmer amaranth ranked the most troublesome weed of soybean in three southern U.S. states [4]. Palmer amaranth has increased in severity, in part because of herbicide resistance. In 2004, Georgia reported the first glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth [5], followed by Arkansas in 2005 [6]. In Mississippi, GR Palmer amaranth was documented in 2008 [7]. In all three states, the reports of GR Palmer amaranth were the result of soybean farmers almost exclusive reliance on glyphosate to manage troublesome weeds using in season POST applications. Moreover, the increased widespread resistance within Palmer amaranth populations occurred due to pollination from male genotypes spreading the resistance mechanism [7].
Barnyardgrass is also a problematic weed of U.S. soybean [8,9]. Similar to Palmer amaranth, barnyardgrass is considered to be a more problematic weed as a result of herbicide resistance. Tennessee was the first state to confirm GR barnyardgrass in the U.S. [10]. In a model based on Arkansas’ cotton (Gossypium hirisutum (L.))-growing region, Bagavathiannan et al. [11] predicted GR barnyardgrass will develop by 2022 following five annual glyphosate applications in continuous GR cotton [Gossypium hirsutum L.]. One potential cultural mechanism to reduce the likelihood of resistance development would be crop rotation. By rotating to GR corn (Zea mays (L.)) or glufosinate-resistant cotton, resistance could be delayed 6 y [11]. In Mississippi, barnyardgrass has a history of resistance to multiple herbicide mode of action (MOA) [7,12]. With the state’s close proximity to Tennessee, researchers in Mississippi have collected and tested barnyardgrass samples for possible glyphosate resistance [13].
Various herbicides can be utilized to manage GR Palmer amaranth in soybean given the loss of glyphosate as a viable control option [14]. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors such as fomesafen are used for PRE and POST control of Palmer amaranth in soybean production systems [15]. Given that Palmer amaranth is an important broadleaf weed species, researchers have documented the control of additional broadleaf weeds following POST applications of fomesafen. Bond et al. [16] and Norsworthy et al. [6] reported 96 and 100% GR Palmer amaranth control, respectively, with fomesafen at 0.420 kg ai ha−1. In addition, Stephenson et al. [17] documented common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.), prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.), and Palmer amaranth control with fomesafen.
Cytokinins occur naturally in plants and are responsible for cell division and enlargement as well as the formation of flowers and fruit [18]. Cytokinins have been reported to increase soybean cell proliferation in tissue culture [19]. Kinetin, a specific cytokinin, has been reported to reverse the effect of NaCl on tobacco [Nicotiana tabacum (L.)] leaves, which mimics water stress, when applied in solution to a leaf disc tissue culture [20]. In general, cytokinin mixtures are available as plant growth regulators (PGRs) for use in multiple crops, and labeling for formulated cytokinin mixtures claims these products have the ability to improve vigor, promote root and shoot growth, reduce stress, and slow leaf aging [21,22]. However, data supporting the label claims and general benefits of applying cytokinin mixtures are limited, especially in row crop production systems. Most research detailing the effects of kinetin and additional cytokinin mixtures has been conducted in tissue culture situations and not following the application to plants in field settings.
Tank mixtures with multiple herbicide MOA offer the potential to increase weed control and reduce application costs [23]. In some specific instances, these combinations can result in synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects [24]. Synergism occurs when the total response of the components is greater than the sum of the individuals [24]. Antagonism occurs when the sum is less than the response of the individual components [24]. The components could be herbicides, foliar fertilizers, water, or any other components [25,26,27,28,29,30].
Reports of herbicide-by-herbicide interactions are common in the literature. Minton et al. [31] reported barnyardgrass control was antagonized when quizalofop or sethoxydim were combined with lactofen. Starke and Oliver [28] documented antagonism on entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula (Gray)) but not on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunose (L.)) control when fomesafen and glyphosate were combined. In addition, water has been reported to antagonize herbicides because of the cations present in hard water. Stable complexes are formed when glyphosate bonds with di- and trivalent cations and have been reported to result in glyphosate antagonism [32,33,34].
Research detailing interactions between herbicides and cytokinin mixtures is limited. Additionally, labeling of formulated cytokinin mixtures does not mention mixtures with additional products, such as herbicides, beyond outlining the use of surfactants [21,22]. Cytokinins have previously been hypothesized as products that could reduce the injury associated with flooding in corn [35]. In addition, a patent exists for a 1:1 mixture of glyphosate and kinetin to reduce glyphosate phytotoxicity [36]. In order to reduce application costs by limiting the number of trips across the field, growers may combine POST herbicides and cytokinin mixtures. A field study was conducted to evaluate the influence on crop response and weed control of adding foliar cytokinin mixtures to POST soybean herbicide applications. This study was conducted parallel to Lawrence et al. [37], as part of a larger soybean research project [38].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site Description

A field study was conducted at the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS, USA in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate combinations of cytokinin mixtures and POST herbicides in soybean. The study was performed at two sites in 2015 (2015-A and 2015-B) and 2016 (2016-A and 2016-B). Coordinates, soil series, description, pH, and organic matter (OM) for each siteyear are presented in (Table 1). The experimental sites were known to be heavily infested with barnyardgrass and Palmer amaranth. Each site was conventionally tilled prior to planting to stimulate weed germination and ensure uniform emergence. ‘Asgrow 4632’ (Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA) mid maturity group IV soybean were used in all siteyears and sowed with a John Deere small-plot air planter (John Deere 1730, Deer and Company, One John Deere Place, Moline, IL, USA) at a rate of 320,000 seed ha−1. The general plot size consisted of four rows of planted soybean (4.0 m wide) by 9.1 m in length separated by a fallow alley.

2.2. Experimental Treatments and Design

The study was designed as a two-factor factorial within a randomized complete block with four replications. Factor A was herbicide treatment (n = 4) and consisted of no herbicide, glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) at 1.36 kg ha-1 alone and in combination with S-metolachlor (2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(1S)-2-methoxy-1-methyethyl acetamide) at 1.42 kg ha-1, and fomesafen (5-2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide) at 0.375 kg ha-1. Factor B was cytokinin mixture (n = 3) included as a tank mix component with each of the herbicide treatment applications listed above and consisted of no cytokinin mixture, kinetin-1 (as 0.000227 kg ha-1 of Ascend, WinField Solutions, LLC, St. Paul, MN, USA), and kinetin-2 (as 0.000227 kg ha-1 of Radiate, Loveland Products, Inc., Greely, CO, USA). All treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted sprayer calibrated to deliver 140 L ha-1 at 248 kPa fitted with extended range flat-fan (XR10002 TeeJet, IL, USA) nozzles at the V3 soybean growth stage, when unrolled leaflets were present on the first through the fourth node.

2.3. Experimental Data Collection

Visible estimates of soybean injury and weed control were recorded on a scale from 0 to 100% with 0 representing no injury or control and 100 representing soybean death or complete weed control from within each plot area [39]. Soybean injury was evaluated 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 d after treatment (DAT) and control of Palmer amaranth and barnyardgrass was evaluated 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT. Heights of five soybean plants in each plot were measured from the ground to the uppermost node 14 DAT and at maturity. Soybean plots were harvested using a small-plot combine (Kincaid Equipment, Haven, KS, USA) on September 25 and October 5 in 2015, and September 16 and October 12 in 2016. Yield was adjusted to 13% moisture content.

2.4. Experimental Data Analysis

Square roots of visible injury and control estimates were arcsine transformed prior to data analyses. The transformation did not improve the homogeneity of the variance based on visual inspection of plotted residuals; therefore, nontransformed data were used for analyses. Soybean injury and weed control data were analyzed utilizing the augmented mixed-model methodology previously detailed by [40]. Data for soybean height and yield were subjected to ANOVA using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) with siteyear, replication (nested within siteyear), and treatment-by-rep interactions listed as the random effect parameters [41]. Least square means were calculated and mean separation (α ≤ 0.05) was produced using PDMIX800 in SAS, which is a macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings [42]. When injury and weed control data did not return a significant synergistic or antagonistic effect [40], the data were analyzed as previously described for soybean height and yield.

3. Results

No synergistic or antagonistic effects were detected for soybean injury regardless of evaluation interval. The main effect of cytokinin product did not influence soybean injury; however, a main effect of herbicide treatment was detected 3, 7, and 14 DAT (Table 2). Injury was at least 5% greater with glyphosate plus fomesafen compared with other treatments 3, 7 and 14 DAT (Table 2). By 21 and 28 DAT, soybean injury was ≤ 1% across all herbicide treatments (data not presented).
Data for Palmer amaranth control indicated no synergistic or antagonistic effects. Additionally, the main effect of cytokinin product was not significant for Palmer amaranth control. A main effect of herbicide treatment was detected for Palmer amaranth control at all evaluations (Table 1). Glyphosate plus fomesafen provided 84 and 67% control of Palmer amaranth 7 and 28 DAT, respectively (Table 2). Glyphosate alone or in combination with S-metolachlor did not control Palmer amaranth > 68% at any evaluation interval (Table 2). Across all evaluations, Palmer amaranth control was at least 6% greater with glyphosate plus fomesafen compared with other herbicide treatments (Table 2). Glyphosate alone controlled Palmer amaranth 58 to 65% across all evaluation intervals (Table 2), confirming the populations of Palmer amaranth contained GR individuals.
An antagonistic effect was detected on barnyardgrass control 14 DAT when kinetin-1 was combined with glyphosate plus fomesafen (Table 3). The addition of kinetin-1 to glyphosate plus fomesafen caused a 9% reduction in barnyardgrass control compared with glyphosate plus fomesafen or with no cytokinin in the mixture (Table 3). Across all other evaluation intervals, a main effect of herbicide treatment was detected for barnyardgrass control (Table 4). Glyphosate alone controlled more barnyardgrass than other herbicide treatments 7 DAT (Table 4). By 21 and 28 DAT, glyphosate plus S-metolachlor controlled barnyardgrass greatest (Table 4). Glyphosate plus fomesafen provided 9 and 6% less barnyardgrass control 7 and 21 DAT, respectively, compared with glyphosate alone (Table 4). Barnyardgrass control 28 DAT with glyphosate plus fomesafen was comparable with glyphosate alone (Table 4).
Herbicide main effects were detected for soybean height 14 DAT, mature soybean height, and soybean yield (Table 4). Pooled across cytokinin mixtures, soybean heights 14 DAT and at maturity were greater for the no herbicide treatment compared with treatments that received a herbicide (Table 4). Height differences were attributed to a severe infestation of Palmer amaranth and barnyardgrass, increasing competition for sunlight necessary for photosynthesis during vegetative growth [43]. Pooled across cytokinin mixtures, treatments containing a herbicide produced greater soybean yields than the no herbicide treatment (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Crop injury that results from POST applications of agricultural pesticides is a common occurrence. Reducing the crop injury with the addition of products in tank mix combinations could be a valuable strategy for farmers, and reduce the need for additional trips across a field. However, the addition of some products in tank mix combinations should be researched to verify that weed control is not reduced by the addition of products to already effective herbicide treatments. Bronzing and necrosis of soybean plant tissues following POST fomesafen applications has been well-documented [44,45]. However, even though some crop injury to soybean can be expected as a result of POST fomesafen applications as either a stand-alone treatment or in combination with additional herbicides, weed control of troublesome, GR weeds is still effective. Everman et al. [46], Whitaker et al. [14], Barkley et al. [47], and Miller and Norsworthy [48] all observed Palmer amaranth control after PRE or POST applications of fomesafen. Fomesafen does not have residual grass activity and as a result, to effectively manage potentially GR barnyardgrass S-metolachlor was included in the current research studies. Moreover, since glyphosate is a POST herbicide lacking residual control, it should be expected that the residual control from S-metolachlor would control barnyardgrass better than glyphosate alone 28 DAT [15,49].
Testing for herbicide interactions as well as determining a level of antagonism associated with specific herbicide products can be difficult. Various statistical techniques to test for herbicide interactions in mixtures with additional compounds have previously been outlined in the literature. Colby’s method has been one of the more popular tests and was most recently used to detail antagonism of volunteer GR corn control in dicamba-resistant soybean [50]. Blouin et al. [40] developed the nonlinear model to test for interactions used by Webster et al. [45] in evaluating a safening interaction on rice [Oryza sativa (L.)] treated with clomazone plus bensulfuron or halosulfuron. After expanding on the nonlinear model, Blouin et al. [40] created the augmented mixed-model methodology utilized by Fish et al. [51] to determine synergism and antagonism between propanil and imazamox on red rice (Oryza sativa (L.)) and barnyardgrass control. Reports of herbicide-by-herbicide or -water interactions are abundant in the literature. Minton et al. [31] reported barnyardgrass control was antagonized when quizalofop or sethoxydim were combined with lactofen. Starke and Oliver [28] documented antagonism on entireleaf morningglory [Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula (Gray)] but not on pitted morningglory [Ipomoea lacunose (L.)] control when fomesafen and glyphosate were combined. Water may antagonize herbicides because of the cations present in hard water. Stable complexes are formed when glyphosate bonds with di- and trivalent cations, leading to glyphosate antagonism [33,34,35]. In the current research project, we relied on a statistical method previously developed by Blouin et al. [41]. Since the tank mixtures that contained cytokinins did not reduce soybean injury, improve soybean plant height, or increase soybean yield there was no synergism to report as a result of the tank mix components.
Barnyardgrass control with glyphosate plus fomesafen was antagonized by the addition of kinetin-1. Similar results have previously been reported, stating that blended fertilizers do not decrease soybean injury from POST herbicides [37]. However, contrary to Lawrence’s [37] research these cytokinin mixtures did not influence weed control when combined with glyphosate alone or in combination with S-metolachlor. Future research should evaluate the possible agronomic benefit of using cytokinins as PGRs in soybean to justify the application costs. Cytokinins should not be mixed with POST soybean herbicide applications included in this research, because this research demonstrated cytokinin mixtures did not reduce soybean injury and could negatively influence control of certain weed species with these specific herbicide treatments.

5. Conclusions

The practice of mixing multiple products has become common to reduce applications on a single field. Results of this study show that cytokinins have the potential to reduce barnyardgrass control when applied with glyphosate and fomesafen. Split application should be considered for applying cytokinins in combination with glyphosate and fomesafen. When the decision to mix multiple products in a single application is made, the applicator should make sure research has been conducted on the efficacy of the mixture.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology of the project, J.A.B.; data collection was conducted by H.T.H.; Formal data analysis was conducted by J.A.B. and H.T.H.; Writing—review and editing, H.D.B., H.T.H., J.A.B. and T.W.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to thank the Mississippi Soybean Promotion Board for partially funding this research.

Acknowledgments

This publication is a contribution of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Material is based on work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch project under accession number 199080. We thank personnel at the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center for their assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest have been declared.

References

  1. Anonymous. Weed survey-southern states. South Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 1972, 25, 216. [Google Scholar]
  2. Buchanan, G.A. Weed survey-southern states. South Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 1973, 26, 174–179. [Google Scholar]
  3. Buchanan, G.A. Weed survey-southern states. South Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 1974, 27, 215–249. [Google Scholar]
  4. Webster, E.P. Weed survey—Southern states: Broadleaf crops sub-section. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 2013, 58, 291–304. [Google Scholar]
  5. Culpepper, A.S.; Grey, T.L.; Vencil, W.K.; Kichler, K.M.; Webster, T.M.; Brown, S.M.; York, A.C.; Davis, J.M.; Hanna, W. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Norsworthy, J.K.; Griffith, G.M.; Scott, R.C.; Smith, K.L.; Oliver, L.R. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 2008, 28, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Heap, I.M. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Available online: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  8. Holm, L.G.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P.; Plucknett, D.L. The World’s Worst Weeds; University Press of Hawaii: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1977; p. 609. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bagavathiannan, M.V.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Smith, K.L.; Burgos, N. Seedbank size and emergence pattern of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Sci. 2011, 59, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Steckel, L.E.; Bond, J.A.; Montgomery, G.B.; Phillips, T.L.; Nandula, N. Glyphosate-resistant barnyardgrass in Tennessee and Mississippi. In Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society 70th Annual Meeting, Birmingham, AL, USA, 23–26 January 2017; pp. 182–183. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bagavathiannan, M.V.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Smith, K.L.; Neve, P. Modeling the evolution of glyphosate resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinchloa crus-galli) in cotton-based production systems of the midsouthern United States. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wright, A.A.; Nandula, V.K.; Grier, L.; Showmaker, K.C.; Bond, J.A.; Peterson, D.G.; Ray, J.D.; Shaw, D.R. Characterization of fenoxaprop-P-ethyl-resistant junglerice (Echinochloa colona) from Mississippi. Weed Sci. 2016, 64, 588–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bond, J.A. Barnyardgrass Control in Mississippi Delta Crops. Available online: http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2017/04/07barnyardgrass-control-in-mississippi-delta-crops. (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  14. Whitaker, J.R.; York, A.C.; Jordan, D.L.; Culpepper, A.S. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bond, J.A.; Barapour, T.; Dodds, D.M.; Irby, J.T.; Larson, E.J.; Pieralisi Reynolds, D.B.; Zurweller, B. 2022 Weed Management for Mississippi Row Crops; Mississippi State University Extension Service: Batesville, MS, USA, 2021; p. 3171. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bond, J.A.; Oliver, L.R.; Stephenson, I.V.D.O. Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 2006, 20, 885–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stephenson, I.V.D.O.; Patterson, M.G.; Faircloth, W.H.; Lunsford, J.N. Weed management with fomesafen preemergence in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 2004, 18, 680–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Skoog, F.; Armstrong, D.J. Cytokinins. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1970, 21, 359–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fosket, D.E.; Short, K.C. The role of cytokinin in the regulation of growth, DNA synthesis and cell proliferation in cultured soybean tissues. Physiol. Plant 1973, 28, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Katz, A.; Dehan, K.; Itai, C. Kinetin reversal of NaCl effects. Plant Physiol. 1978, 62, 836–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Anonymous. Radiate Plant Growth Regulator Product Label. Available online: https://www.agrian.com (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  22. Anonymous. Ascend Plant Growth Regulator Product Label. Available online: https://www.agrian.com (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  23. Hydrick, D.E.; Shaw, D.R. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weeds species. Weed Technol. 1994, 8, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nash, R.G. Phytotoxic interaction studies-techniques for evaluation and presentation of results. Weed Sci. 1981, 29, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Devkota, P.; Johnson, W.G. Glufosinate efficacy as influenced by carrier water pH, hardness, foliar fertilizer, and ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 848–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mahoney, K.J.; Nurse, R.E.; Sikkema, P.H. The effect of hard water, spray solution storage time, and ammonium sulfate on glyphosate efficacy and yield on glyphosate-resistant corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 94, 1401–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Scroggs, D.M.; Miller, D.K.; Stewart, A.M.; Leonard, B.R.; Griffn, J.L.; Blouin, D.C. Weed response to foliar co-applications of glyphosate and zinc sulfate. Weed Technol. 2009, 23, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Starke, R.J.; Oliver, L.R. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 1998, 46, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Roskamp, J.M.; Chahal, G.S.; Johnson, W.G. The effect of cations and ammonium sulfate on the efficacy of dicamba and 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vidrine, P.R.; Reynolds, D.B.; Blouin, D.C. Grass control in soybean (Glycine max) with graminicides applied alone and in mixtures. Weed Technol. 1995, 9, 68–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Minton, B.W.; Kurtz, M.E.; Shaw, D.R. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with grass and broadleaf weed herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 1989, 37, 223–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Glass, R.L. Metal complex formation by glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1984, 32, 1249–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lungager Madsen, H.E.; Christensen, H.H.; Gottlieb-Peterson, C. Stability constants of copper (II), zinc, manganeses (II), calcium, and magnesium complexes of N(phosphonomethyl)glycine (glyphosate). Acta. Chem. Scand. A 1978, 32, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Thelen, K.D.; Jackson, E.P.; Penner, D. The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 1995, 43, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rao, R.; Li, Y.; Bryan, H.H.; Reed, S.T.; D’Ambrosio, F. Assessment of foliar sprays to alleviate flooding injury in corn (Zea mays L.). Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 2002, 115, 208–211. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ng, D.; Wang, D. Certain Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs) as Safener to Glyphosate for Application to Glyphosate-Tolerant Crops. US Patents 8,153,559 B2, 10 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
  37. Everman, W.J.; Clewis, S.B.; York, A.C.; Wilcut, J.W. Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen, and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol. 2009, 23, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lawrence, B.H.; Hydrick, H.T.; Bond, J.A.; Golden, B.R.; Allen, T.W.; Sanders, T. Weed control and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Response to Mixtures of Blended Foliar Fertilizer and Postemergence Herbicides. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/10/11/1719(accessed on 2 February 2021).
  39. Hydrick, H.T. Evaluation of Foliar Fertilizer or Cytokinin Mixtures in Combination with Common Postemergence Soybean Herbicides. Available online: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3023&context=td (accessed on 11 November 2022).
  40. Blouin, D.C.; Webster, E.P.; Zhang, W. Analysis of synergistic and antagonistic effects of herbicides using non-linear mixed model methodology. Weed Technol. 2004, 18, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Blouin, D.C.; Webster, E.P.; Bond, J.A. On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol. 2011, 25, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saxton, A.M. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter grouping in ProcMixed. In Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, Cary, NC, USA, 22–25 March 1998; pp. 1243–1246. [Google Scholar]
  43. Holt, J.S. Plant response to light: Potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 1995, 43, 474–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Johnson, B.F.; Bailey, W.A.; Wilson, H.P.; Holshouser, D.L.; Herbert, D.A.; Hines, T.E. Herbicide effects on visible injury, leaf area, and yield of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2002, 16, 554–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mangialardi, J.P.; Orlowski, J.M.; Lawrence, B.H.; Bond, J.A.; Golden, B.R.; Catchot, A.; Peeples, J.D.; Eubank, T.W. Growth regulation with lactofen does not affect seed yield of irrigated soybean. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 1112–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Blouin, D.C.; Webster, E.P.; Bond, J.A. On a method of analysis for synergistic and antagonistic joint-action effects with fenoxaprop mixtures in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 583–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Barkley, S.L.; Chaudhari, S.; Jennings, K.M.; Schultheis, J.R.; Meyers, S.L.; Monks, D.W. Fomesafen programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Miller, M.R.; Norsworthy, J.K. Evaluation of herbicide programs for use in a 2,4-D-resistant soybean technology for control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 366–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Anonymous. Dual Magnum Herbicide Label. Available online: http://www.agrian.com (accessed on 11 April 2021).
  50. Underwood, M.G.; Soltani, N.; Hooker, D.C.; Robinson, D.E.; Vink, J.P.; Swanton, C.J.; Sikkema, P.H. The addition of dicamba to POST applications of quizalofop-p-ethyl or clethodim antagonizes volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn control in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fish, J.C.; Webster, E.P.; Blouin, D.C.; Bond, J.A. Imazamox plus propanil mixtures for grass weed management in imidazolinone-resistant rice. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, soil series, soil description, soil pH, and soil organic matter (OM) for weed control studies conducted in Stoneville, MS during 2015 and 2016 to determine the response of tank mixtures containing cytokinins and POST herbicide treatments in soybean.
Table 1. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, soil series, soil description, soil pH, and soil organic matter (OM) for weed control studies conducted in Stoneville, MS during 2015 and 2016 to determine the response of tank mixtures containing cytokinins and POST herbicide treatments in soybean.
SiteyearCoordinatesSoil SeriesDescriptionpHOM
1:2 (v:v)%
2015-A33°26′29.18″ N,
90°54′41.92″ W		Dundee very fine sandy loamFine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoqualfs6.11.2
2015-B33°24′21.94″ N,
90°55′31.27″ W		Newellton silty clayClayey over loamy, smectitic overmixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Epiaquepts6.91.6
2016-A33°26′28.33″ N,
90°54′23.67″ W		Commerce sandyclay loamFine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic FluvaquenticEndoaquepts6.81.6
2016-B33°24′21.94″ N,
90°55′31.27″ W		Newellton silty clayClayey over loamy, smectitic overmixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Epiaquepts6.91.6
Table
Table 2. Soybean injury 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment (DAT) and Palmer amaranth control 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT with tank mixtures of POST herbicide treatments and cytokinin products applied at the V3 growth stage in Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Table 2. Soybean injury 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment (DAT) and Palmer amaranth control 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT with tank mixtures of POST herbicide treatments and cytokinin products applied at the V3 growth stage in Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Herbicide TreatmentRateInjuryPalmer Amaranth Control
3 DAT7 DAT14 DAT7 DAT14 DAT21 DAT28 DAT
kg ae or ai ha−1%
None-0 c0 c0 b0 c0 c0 c0 c
Glyphosate1.371 c0 c1 b65 b63 b62 b58 b
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39515 a12 a6 a84 a82 a78 a67 a
Glyphosate plus S-metolachlor1.37 + 1.426 b6 b1 b64 b68 b63 b61 b
p-value-0.00390.03430.00010.00210.00010.00010.0001
† Data were pooled over four siteyears and three cytokinin products (none, kinetin-1, kinetin-2). Cytokinins were as follows: as 0.000227 kg ai ha−1 of each of kinetin-1 (as Ascend) and kinetin-2 (as Radiate). Means followed by the same letter for each parameter and/or evaluation are not different at α ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Antagonistic responses for barnyardgrass control 14 d after treatment (DAT) with tank mixtures of POST herbicide treatments and cytokinin products applied at the V3 growth stage to soybean in Stoneville, MS, during 2015 and 2016 †,‡.
Table 3. Antagonistic responses for barnyardgrass control 14 d after treatment (DAT) with tank mixtures of POST herbicide treatments and cytokinin products applied at the V3 growth stage to soybean in Stoneville, MS, during 2015 and 2016 †,‡.
Herbicide TreatmentRateCytokinin Tank Mix Component ††
Kinetin-1Kinetin-2
ExpectedObservedp-valueExpectedObservedp-Value
kg ae or ai ha−1% %
Glyphosate1.3789870.529089880.7514
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.3958273 *0.004782810.8016
Glyphosate plus S-metolachlor1.37 + 1.4291870.178191910.9686
† Expected values for each cytokinin product are the same due to a lack of herbicidal activity from the cytokinin tank mixtures; therefore, values are the percent weed control without a cytokinin product. ‡ Asterisks denote antagonistic responses between herbicide treatment and cytokinin product when α ≤ 0.05. †† Applications were made with kinetin-1 (as 0.000227 kg ai ha−1 of Ascend) and kinetin-2 (as 0.000227 kg ai ha−1 of Radiate) as tank mixtures with each of the herbicide treatments. The p-value nested within each cytokinin product denotes significant differences between observed and expected values within each corresponding cytokinin product.
Table
Table 4. Barnyardgrass control 7, 21 and 28 d after treatment (DAT), soybean plant height 14 DAT, mature plant height, and yield that resulted from soybean receiving tank mixtures of POST herbicide treatments and cytokinins applied at the V3 growth stage in Stoneville, MS, during 2015 and 2016 †.
Table 4. Barnyardgrass control 7, 21 and 28 d after treatment (DAT), soybean plant height 14 DAT, mature plant height, and yield that resulted from soybean receiving tank mixtures of POST herbicide treatments and cytokinins applied at the V3 growth stage in Stoneville, MS, during 2015 and 2016 †.
Herbicide TreatmentRateBarnyardgrass ControlSoybean Plant Height
7 DAT21 DAT28 DAT14 DATMaturityYield
kg ae or ai ha−1%cmkg ha−1
None-0 d0 d0 c40 a1002674 b
Glyphosate1.3791 a86 b83 b37 b963499 a
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39582 c80 c79 b36 b973640 a
Glyphosate plus S-metolachlor1.37 + 1.4286 b92 a89 a36 b973525 a
p-value-0.00780.00350.00010.00010.12930.0478
† Data were pooled over four siteyears and three cytokinin products (none, kinetin-1, kinetin-2). Means followed by the same letter for each parameter and/or evaluation are not different at α ≤ 0.05. Applications were made with kinetin-1 (as 0.000227 kg ai ha−1 of Ascend) and kinetin-2 (as 0.000227 kg ai ha−1 of Radiate) as tank mixtures with each of the herbicide treatments.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bowman, H.D.; Hydrick, H.T.; Bond, J.A.; Allen, T.W. Response of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides and Combinations of Cytokinin Mixtures. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3086. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123086

AMA Style

Bowman HD, Hydrick HT, Bond JA, Allen TW. Response of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides and Combinations of Cytokinin Mixtures. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):3086. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123086

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bowman, Hunter D., Huntington T. Hydrick, Jason A. Bond, and Thomas W. Allen. 2022. "Response of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides and Combinations of Cytokinin Mixtures" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 3086. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123086

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop