Herbicide treatments, timing, and rates for 2007 and 2008 at the Field Crops Unit and Plant Breeding Unit at E.V. Smith Research Center.
Abstract
White lupin is of increasing interest in the southeastern United States (US) as a winter legume cover crop or as mid-winter forage for ruminants. White lupins are poor weed competitors during early establishment, making effective weed control necessary; however, only three herbicides are currently registered for use in lupin. An experiment was conducted at two Alabama sites in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate herbicide efficacy provided by ten preemergence (PRE) and nine postemergence (POST) herbicides as well as lupin injury and yield. Overall, PRE applied herbicides, particularly imazethapyr, linuron, and flumioxazin, caused less crop injury than POST herbicides while providing ≥ 86% control of annual bluegrass, corn spurry, heartwing sorrel, henbit, and lesser swinecress six weeks after application. Grass-active herbicides, fluazifop and sethoxydim, provided greater than 95% of annual bluegrass control without causing unrecoverable lupin damage. Imazethapyr applied POST controlled shepherd’s purse (96% to 98%), cutleaf evening-primrose (81% to 96%), and wild radish (71% to 99%) without lupin injury. POST-directed spray applications of glyphosate and flumioxazin provided good weed control of corn spurry (80% to 98%) and winter vetch (71% to 95%) but caused significant crop injury due to drift. In general, grain yields were only reduced with the use of chlorimuron, diclosulam, glyphosate, and thifensulfuron. This research suggests there are several herbicides not currently registered that could be beneficial for use in US lupin production.
Keywords
- Alternative nitrogen source
- cover crop
- weed contro
1. Introduction
Conventional agriculture depends on synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizers and herbicides for high crop performance [1]. Alternative N sources are available in the form of leguminous crops such as
Previous research has been conducted to compare the effectiveness of herbicides on weed control and potential for crop injury in lupin. A successful preemergence (PRE) herbicide treatment resulting in no crop damage is pendimethalin alone, or in combination with metribuzin [8, 9]. Pendimethalin use in white lupin provided 100% control of Russian thistle (
Knott [8] found that lupin are especially sensitive to postemergent (POST) herbicides. Fluazifop, as a POST application, provided ≥98% control of wheat (
Currently, only three herbicides are registered for use in lupin: S-metolachlor, carfentrazone-ethyl, and glyphosate [16]. Therefore, the objective of this experiment is to investigate the use of chemical weed management practices in white lupin and evaluate their effect on weed control, crop injury, and lupin grain yield.
2. Materials and methods
|
|
|
|
None | |||
S-metolachlor + Linuron | PRE | 1.12 + 1.12 | kg ai ha-1 |
Metribuzin | PRE | 0.42 | kg ai ha-1 |
Linuron | PRE | 1.12 | kg ai ha-1 |
S-metolachlor | PRE | 1.12 | kg ai ha-1 |
Pendimethalin (0.5 X) | PRE | 0.84 | kg ai ha-1 |
Pendimethalin (1 X) | PRE | 1.68 | kg ai ha-1 |
Pendimethalin (2 X) | PRE | 3.36 | kg ai ha-1 |
Diclosulam | PRE | 0.026 | kg ai ha-1 |
Flumioxazin | PRE | 0.071 | kg ai ha-1 |
Imazethapyr | PRE | 0.071 | kg ai ha-1 |
Thifensulfuron (2007) | POST | 0.071 | kg ai ha-1 |
Carfentrazone (2008) | PDS | 46.8 | g product ha-1 |
Fluazifop | POST | 0.84 | kg ai ha-1 |
Fomesafen | POST | 0.28 | kg ai ha-1 |
2,4-DB | POST | 0.28 | kg ai ha-1 |
Chlorimuron (2007) | POST | 0.052 | kg ai ha-1 |
Clove/Cinnamon Oil (2008) | PDS | 6.9 | L product ha-1 |
Glyphosate | PDS | 1.12 | kg ai ha-1 |
Sethoxydim | POST | 0.28 | kg ai ha-1 |
Flumioxazin | PDS | 0.071 | kg ai ha-1 |
Imazethapyr | POST | 0.071 | kg ai ha-1 |
Crop injury ratings were taken on a scale from 0 (no injury/alive) to 10 (complete injury/dead). The nontreated control was considered to have 0 crop injury. In 2007/2008, crop injury ratings were taken three weeks after planting and PRE application and 15 weeks after planting. In 2008/2009, injury ratings were taken four weeks after planting and PRE application and 18 weeks after planting. In study year 2007/2008, plots at PBU and FCU were harvested on June 17, 2008. In study year 2008/2009, plots at FCU were harvested on June 16, 2009 and at PBU on June 29, 2009 due to differences in attaining maturity. The two center rows of each plot were harvested with a 2-row/10 ft Massey Ferguson plot combine3 to determine grain yield (kg ha-1).
3. Results and discussion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Name | Class | 2008 | 2007 | 2008 | 2007 | 2007 | 2008 | 2008 |
None | Control | 5 | 35 | 4 | 4 | 22 | 1 | 3 |
S-metolachlor/Linuron | PRE | 94 | 99 | 99 | 94 | 99 | 92 | 93 |
Metribuzin | PRE | 96 | 99 | 96 | 98 | 97 | 97 | 96 |
Linuron | PRE | 98 | 99 | 99 | 92 | 95 | 86 | 94 |
S-metolachlor | PRE | 95 | 98 | 76 | 88 | 90 | 98 | 86 |
Pendimethalin (0.5X) | PRE | 86 | 98 | 97 | 48 | 97 | 88 | 45 |
Pendimethalin (1X) | PRE | 89 | 94 | 94 | 46 | 99 | 97 | 41 |
Pendimethalin (2X) | PRE | 93 | 98 | 98 | 79 | 99 | 98 | 78 |
Diclosulam | PRE | 97 | 99 | 95 | 98 | 99 | 98 | 98 |
Flumioxazin | PRE | 97 | 99 | 99 | 99 | 98 | 99 | 99 |
Imazethapyr | PRE | 90 | 98 | 90 | 97 | 93 | 99 | 95 |
In 2007, the second weed rating (22 weeks after planting) conducted after POST herbicide applications revealed PRE applied herbicide weed control to be greater than nontreated controls at both FCU and PBU for each rated weed species except for cutleaf evening-primrose (
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | ||||
Name | Class | Mean* | Mean* | Mean* | Mean* | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean* | Mean* | Mean* | Mean* |
None | Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 0 | ||
S-metolachlor/ Linuron |
PRE | 98 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 92 | <0.0001 | 95 | <0.0001 | 98 | 99 | 97 | 97 |
Metribuzin | PRE | 98 | 78 | 96 | 86 | 94 | <0.0001 | 91 | <0.0001 | 99 | 99 | 89 | 81 |
Linuron | PRE | 96 | 90 | 97 | 99 | 70 | <0.0001 | 83 | <0.0001 | 98 | 99 | 94 | 72 |
S-metolachlor | PRE | 98 | 93 | 99 | 99 | 45 | 0.0015 | 36 | 0.0007 | 97 | 95 | 96 | 66 |
Pendimethalin (0.5X) | PRE | 98 | 58 | 99 | 99 | 42 | 0.0031 | 14 | 0.5624 | 97 | 90 | 95 | 86 |
Pendimethalin (1X) | PRE | 98 | 92 | 99 | 99 | 23 | 0.1595 | 28 | 0.0089 | 99 | 96 | 95 | 61 |
Pendimethalin (2X) | PRE | 99 | 82 | 99 | 99 | 39 | 0.0065 | 48 | 0.0003 | 99 | 99 | 98 | 73 |
Diclosulam | PRE | 95 | 68 | 88 | 97 | 96 | <0.0001 | 94 | <0.0001 | 99 | 99 | 99 | 97 |
Flumioxazin | PRE | 98 | 80 | 99 | 99 | 97 | <0.0001 | 95 | <0.0001 | 99 | 99 | 83 | 74 |
Imazethapyr | PRE | 97 | 87 | 88 | 97 | 85 | <0.0001 | 92 | <0.0001 | 89 | 97 | 79 | 60 |
Thifensulfuron | POST | 98 | 64 | 43 | 98 | 15 | 0.5624 | 31 | 0.0005 | 98 | 99 | 98 | 89 |
Fluazifop | POST | 97 | 99 | 80 | 65 | 57 | 0.0001 | 50 | <0.0001 | 98 | 95 | 94 | 57 |
Fomesafen | POST | 94 | 67 | 22 | 37 | 59 | <0.0001 | 70 | <0.0001 | 97 | 98 | 93 | 63 |
2,4-DB | POST | 93 | 76 | 39 | 60 | 98 | <0.0001 | 99 | <0.0001 | 99 | 90 | 96 | 76 |
Chlorimuron | POST | 99 | 65 | 93 | 98 | 98 | <0.0001 | 98 | <0.0001 | 99 | 99 | 99 | 98 |
Glyphosate | PDS | 98 | 89 | 88 | 92 | 69 | <0.0001 | 83 | <0.0001 | 97 | 99 | 92 | 71 |
Sethoxydim | POST | 97 | 96 | 71 | 84 | 45 | 0.0014 | 45 | 0.0002 | 97 | 91 | 93 | 53 |
Flumioxazin | PDS | 95 | 80 | 98 | 93 | 93 | <0.0001 | 88 | <0.0001 | 98 | 91 | 95 | 79 |
Imazethapyr | POST | 97 | 77 | 86 | 88 | 81 | <0.0001 | 85 | <0.0001 | 98 | 96 | 91 | 65 |
The second weed control rating in 2008 was conducted 26 weeks after planting at both locations. Due to excessive crop injury in 2007, the POST herbicides thifensulfuron and chlorimuron were replaced with carfentrazone18 and a clove/cinnamon oil19 mixture. When compared to a nontreated, PRE herbicides at both locations provided good weed control for rated weed species with the exception of shepherd’s purse [
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | PBU | FCU | PBU | FCU | |||||||
Name | Class | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value |
Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean* | Mean* | Mean* |
None | Control | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |||||
S-metolachlor/ Linuron |
PRE | 94 | <0.0001 | 97 | <0.0001 | 77 | <0.0001 | 72 | <0.0001 | 92 | <0.0001 | 98 | 99 | 96 |
Metribuzin | PRE | 74 | <0.0001 | 85 | <0.0001 | 73 | <0.0001 | 81 | <0.0001 | 93 | <0.0001 | 91 | 98 | 67 |
Linuron | PRE | 83 | <0.0001 | 93 | <0.0001 | 85 | <0.0001 | 75 | <0.0001 | 98 | <0.0001 | 93 | 99 | 76 |
S-metolachlor | PRE | 57 | <0.0001 | 63 | <0.0001 | 30 | 0.0182 | 12 | 0.1984 | 42 | 0.0651 | 80 | 94 | 85 |
Pendimethalin (0.5X) | PRE | 78 | <0.0001 | 96 | <0.0001 | 10 | 0.5673 | 12 | 0.1746 | 3 | 0.9999 | 63 | 97 | 46 |
Pendimethalin (1X) | PRE | 98 | <0.0001 | 92 | <0.0001 | 23 | 0.0681 | 6 | 0.6044 | 21 | 0.3890 | 93 | 96 | 92 |
Pendimethalin (2X) | PRE | 91 | <0.0001 | 96 | <0.0001 | 18 | 0.1434 | 8 | 0.4548 | 64 | 0.0051 | 96 | 99 | 83 |
Diclosulam | PRE | 79 | <0.0001 | 91 | <0.0001 | 85 | <0.0001 | 91 | <0.0001 | 99 | <0.0001 | 98 | 99 | 98 |
Flumioxazin | PRE | 94 | <0.0001 | 98 | <0.0001 | 94 | <0.0001 | 95 | <0.0001 | 98 | <0.0001 | 96 | 98 | 90 |
Imazethapyr | PRE | 42 | 0.0003 | 97 | <0.0001 | 48 | 0.0003 | 96 | <0.0001 | 85 | 0.0002 | 95 | 99 | 49 |
Carfentrazone | POST | 23 | 0.0292 | 55 | 0.0001 | 62 | <0.0001 | 35 | 0.0007 | 69 | 0.0028 | 74 | 96 | 70 |
Fluazifop | POST | 7 | 0.6489 | 6 | 0.8047 | 66 | <0.0001 | 28 | 0.0041 | 32 | 0.1578 | 43 | 90 | 82 |
Fomesafen | POST | 14 | 0.1718 | 19 | 0.1242 | 41 | 0.0018 | 75 | <0.0001 | 94 | <0.0001 | 99 | 99 | 77 |
2,4-DB | POST | 6 | 0.7628 | 5 | 0.9214 | 82 | <0.0001 | 96 | <0.0001 | 21 | 0.3932 | 63 | 98 | 73 |
Clove/ Cinnamon Oil |
POST | 26 | 0.0160 | 32 | 0.0124 | 58 | <0.0001 | 14 | 0.1984 | 29 | 0.2074 | 99 | 99 | 51 |
Glyphosate | PDS | 94 | <0.0001 | 98 | <0.0001 | 95 | <0.0001 | 91 | <0.0001 | 96 | <0.0001 | 57 | 97 | 94 |
Sethoxydim | POST | 7 | 0.6549 | 45 | 0.0010 | 39 | 0.0028 | 25 | 0.0091 | 36 | 0.1083 | 83 | 95 | 54 |
Flumioxazin | PDS | 80 | <0.0001 | 81 | <0.0001 | 81 | <0.0001 | 68 | <0.0001 | 60 | 0.0082 | 72 | 97 | 80 |
Imazethapyr | POST | 34 | <0.0001 | 96 | <0.0001 | 82 | <0.0001 | 96 | <0.0001 | 97 | <0.0001 | 71 | 99 | 68 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | ||||||||
Name | Class | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value |
Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value |
None | Control | 1.49 | 0.91 | 0.21 | 1.68 | 0.57 | 1.06 | ||||||
S-metolachlor/ Linuron |
PRE | 0.38 | 0.8758 | 2.16 | 0.9490 | 1.68 | 0.4758 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 0.26 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 1.0000 |
Metribuzin | PRE | 1.85 | 1.0000 | 1.95 | 0.9891 | 4.45* | 0.0011 | 1.68 | 1.0000 | 0.06 | 0.9795 | 1.22 | 1.0000 |
Linuron | PRE | 0.88 | 1.0000 | 2.40 | 0.8482 | 0.75 | 0.9980 | 0.91 | 0.9997 | 0.26 | 1.0000 | 1.00 | 1.0000 |
S-metolachlor | PRE | 2.05 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.04 | 0.9355 | 1.95 | 1.0000 | 1.68 | 0.9422 | 1.46 | 1.0000 |
Pendimethalin (0.5X) | PRE | 2.32 | 0.9999 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 0.38 | 1.0000 | 1.72 | 1.0000 | 0.26 | 1.0000 | 0.75 | 1.0000 |
Pendimethalin (1X) | PRE | 1.99 | 1.0000 | 0.53 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 0.9997 | 0.38 | 0.9970 |
Pendimethalin (2X) | PRE | 2.88 | 0.9652 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | 3.95* | 0.0042 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.46 | 0.9891 | 2.00 | 0.9980 |
Diclosulam | PRE | 9.06* | <0.0001 | 6.05* | 0.0011 | 9.94* | <0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.2180 | 8.54* | <0.0001 | 6.79* | 0.0002 |
Flumioxazin | PRE | 1.56 | 1.0000 | 0.26 | 0.9934 | 2.86* | 0.0555 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 0.13 | 0.9989 | 0.75 | 1.0000 |
Imazethapyr | PRE | 1.65 | 1.0000 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | 2.08 | 0.2500 | 1.35 | 1.0000 | 0.38 | 1.0000 | 1.68 | 1.0000 |
Thifensulfuron | POST | 10.00* | <0.0001 | 10.00* | <0.0001 | 9.52* | <0.0001 | 9.87* | <0.0001 | 10.00* | <0.0001 | 9.43* | <0.0001 |
Fluazifop | POST | 3.81 | 0.5138 | 1.68 | 0.9997 | 0.50 | 1.0000 | 2.62 | 0.9997 | 2.71 | 0.3323 | 1.68 | 1.0000 |
Fomesafen | POST | 8.00* | <0.0001 | 2.40 | 0.8482 | 6.78* | <0.0001 | 3.36 | 0.8909 | 7.37* | <0.0001 | 2.71 | 0.8047 |
2,4-DB | POST | 0.50 | 0.9631 | 0.75 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 0.75 | 0.9934 | 0.75 | 1.0000 | 0.06 | 0.6103 |
Chlorimuron | POST | 9.94* | <0.0001 | 9.94* | <0.0001 | 9.99* | <0.0001 | 9.62* | <0.0001 | 10.00* | <0.0001 | 9.74* | <0.0001 |
Glyphosate | PDS | 6.30* | 0.0060 | 2.71 | 0.6636 | 5.89* | <0.0001 | 1.42 | 1.0000 | 2.91 | 0.2497 | 2.18 | 0.9868 |
Sethoxydim | POST | 2.28 | 1.0000 | 3.81 | 0.1551 | 0.26 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 0.9997 | 0.75 | 1.0000 |
Flumioxazin | PDS | 7.29* | 0.0003 | 4.50* | 0.0452 | 7.84* | <0.0001 | 3.70 | 0.7209 | 6.01* | 0.0002 | 6.02* | 0.0024 |
Imazethapyr | POST | 4.45 | 0.2304 | 0.94 | 1.0000 | 1.06 | 0.9242 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | 1.12 | 1.0000 | 1.00 | 1.0000 |
Crop injury in 2008 resulted in less overall lupin injury than in 2007. PRE applied herbicides did not cause significant injury in comparison to a nontreated at either location for any of the cultivars except for diclosulam (5.26 to 9.00), which caused unacceptable injury, regardless of location or cultivar (Table 6). Diclosulam, which is applied either preplant incorporated (PPI) or PRE, is registered in soybean [
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | FCU | PBU | ||||||||||
Name | Class | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean crop injury | Dunnett’s P-value | ||
None | Control | 0.75 | 1.72 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 1.90 | 1.46 | ||||||||
S-metolachlor/ Linuron |
PRE | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 3.09 | 0.8164 | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 0.9999 | 1.95 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | ||
Metribuzin | PRE | 2.40 | 0.3071 | 1.72 | 1.0000 | 0.26 | 0.9999 | 0.57 | 0.9999 | 0.53 | 0.4054 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | ||
Linuron | PRE | 0.26 | 0.9871 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 0.06 | 0.8164 | 0.57 | 0.9999 | 0.75 | 0.7267 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | ||
S-metolachlor | PRE | 1.88 | 0.7463 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 0.9871 | 0.06 | 0.2778 | 1.95 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 0.8730 | ||
Pendimethalin (0.5X) | PRE | 0.53 | 1.0000 | 0.94 | 0.9871 | 0.38 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 0.9999 | 0.06* | 0.0120 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | ||
Pendimethalin (1X) | PRE | 0.53 | 1.0000 | 1.72 | 1.0000 | 1.06 | 0.9994 | 0.38 | 0.9716 | 0.26 | 0.1031 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | ||
Pendimethalin (2X) | PRE | 0.91 | 1.0000 | 2.11 | 1.0000 | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 0.38 | 0.2178 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | ||
Diclosulam | PRE | 8.78* | <0.0001 | 5.26* | 0.0080 | 9.00* | <0.0001 | 9.00* | <0.0001 | 7.60* | <0.0001 | 7.26* | <0.0001 | ||
Flumioxazin | PRE | 0.75 | 1.0000 | 6.28* | 0.0002 | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 2.51 | 0.5138 | 0.38 | 0.2178 | 1.68 | 1.0000 | ||
Imazethapyr | PRE | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 2.51 | 0.9986 | 0.26 | 0.9999 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | ||
Carfentrazone | PDS | 0.94 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.46 | 0.8730 | 0.57 | 0.9999 | 1.12 | 0.9932 | 1.72 | 1.0000 | ||
Fluazifop | POST | 1.72 | 0.8730 | 1.46 | 1.0000 | 1.46 | 0.8730 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 0.75 | 0.7267 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | ||
Fomesafen | POST | 2.66 | 0.1776 | 3.22 | 0.7188 | 3.22* | 0.0155 | 3.48* | 0.0648 | 2.11 | 1.0000 | 4.00* | 0.0981 | ||
2,4-DB | POST | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 2.40 | 0.9998 | 0.38 | 1.0000 | 0.26 | 0.8164 | 0.06* | 0.0120 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | ||
Clove/Cinnamon Oil | PDS | 0.57 | 1.0000 | 2.40 | 0.9998 | 0.06 | 0.8164 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 0.75 | 0.7267 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | ||
Glyphosate | PDS | 6.01* | <0.0001 | 6.26* | 0.0002 | 4.49* | 0.0001 | 5.25* | 0.0002 | 3.09 | 0.9334 | 7.76* | <0.0001 | ||
Sethoxydim | POST | 1.42 | 0.9932 | 0.75 | 0.8730 | 1.00 | 0.9999 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 0.75 | 0.7267 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | ||
Flumioxazin | PDS | 1.22 | 0.9999 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 0.38 | 1.0000 | 1.22 | 1.0000 | 1.72 | 1.0000 | 1.72 | 1.0000 | ||
Imazethapyr | POST | 1.22 | 0.9999 | 0.75 | 0.8730 | 0.06 | 0.8164 | 0.38 | 0.9716 | 0.94 | 0.9331 | 1.46 | 1.0000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Name | Class | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean* | Mean* | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | Mean | Dunnett’s P-value | |
None | Control | 1337 | 702 | 555 | 2074 | 1957 | 1219 | |||||
S-metolachlor/Linuron | PRE | 1331 | 1.0000 | 734 | 877 | 1936 | 1.0000 | 1108 | 0.0011 | 1262 | 1.0000 | |
Metribuzin | PRE | 1174 | 0.9831 | 778 | 551 | 1612 | 0.2811 | 1410 | 0.1150 | 1368 | 0.9315 | |
Linuron | PRE | 1370 | 1.0000 | 700 | 729 | 2126 | 1.0000 | 1484 | 0.2526 | 1359 | 1.0000 | |
S-metolachlor | PRE | 1176 | 0.9855 | 825 | 671 | 1910 | 0.9998 | 1426 | 0.1384 | 1027 | 0.5331 | |
Pendimethalin (0.5X) | PRE | 1353 | 1.0000 | 664 | 740 | 1937 | 1.0000 | 1567 | 0.5104 | 1522 | 0.7994 | |
Pendimethalin (1X) | PRE | 1256 | 1.0000 | 767 | 617 | 2025 | 1.0000 | 1504 | 0.3048 | 1233 | 1.0000 | |
Pendimethalin (2X) | PRE | 1294 | 1.0000 | 719 | 585 | 1907 | 0.9997 | 1619 | 0.7094 | 1442 | 0.8990 | |
Diclosulam | PRE | 391 | <0.0001 | 383 | 214 | 648 | <0.0001 | 210 | <0.0001 | 548 | 0.0667 | |
Flumioxazin | PRE | 1305 | 1.0000 | 594 | 674 | 1470 | 0.0565 | 1264 | 0.0159 | 1217 | 1.0000 | |
Imazethapyr | PRE | 1323 | 1.0000 | 632 | 630 | 1742 | 0.7320 | 1460 | 0.1984 | 1309 | 1.0000 | |
Thifensulfuron (2007) | POST | 0 | <0.0001 | 218 | 177 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | |
Carfentrazone (2008) | POST | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2081 | 1.0000 | 1877 | 1.0000 | 1203 | 1.0000 | |
Fluazifop | POST | 1094 | 0.6993 | 893 | 536 | 1889 | 0.9987 | 1827 | 1.0000 | 1573 | 0.7980 | |
Fomesafen | POST | 1167 | 0.9744 | 666 | 666 | 1738 | 0.7189 | 1511 | 0.3234 | 1372 | 0.9390 | |
2,4-DB | POST | 1216 | 0.9996 | 892 | 783 | 2180 | 1.0000 | 1321 | 0.0364 | 1580 | 0.7716 | |
Chlorimuron (2007) | POST | 0 | <0.0001 | 0 | 143 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | |
Clove/cinnamon oil (2008) | POST | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2195 | 1.0000 | 1618 | 0.7065 | 1347 | 1.0000 | |
Glyphosate | PDS | 971 | 0.1563 | 673 | 634 | 364 | <0.0001 | 735 | <0.0001 | 839 | 0.3234 | |
Sethoxydim | POST | 1261 | 1.0000 | 706 | 525 | 1941 | 1.0000 | 1309 | 0.0309 | 1313 | 1.0000 | |
Flumioxazin | PDS | 1229 | 0.9999 | 597 | 652 | 1938 | 1.0000 | 1350 | 0.0545 | 1153 | 1.0000 | |
Imazethapyr | POST | 1317 | 1.0000 | 557 | 695 | 2020 | 1.0000 | 1226 | 0.0087 | 1433 | 0.9770 |
Experiments conducted by Payne et al. [4] in the Pacific Northwest showed a maximum white lupin yield of 2128 kg ha-1, but this yield is not stable. In our study, yield within each cultivar varied greatly between years depending on the treatment. The grain-type cultivar ABL 1082 had the highest mean grain yield, followed by the forage-type cultivar AU Alpha and the cover-crop-type cultivar AU Homer. In this experiment, diclosulam, thifensulfuron, chlorimuron, and glyphosate caused major grain yield losses. AU Homer appears to be the least sensitive to herbicide-induced yield reductions, since neither thifensulfuron nor chlorimuron reduced grain yield. Ivany and McCully [13] stated that POST applications of imazethapyr caused severe crop injury and yield loss in sweet white lupin. The results of this study did not confirm their findings. Neither the PRE nor the POST imazethpyr applications caused significant crop injury or subsequent yield reduction. This could be due, in part, to the use of different cultivars than those used by Ivany and McCully [13].
In general, PRE herbicide applications included in this study, excluding diclosulam, could be used in lupin without posing a significant risk of crop injury. Previous observations by Dittman [28] agree with findings that PRE herbicides may cause less lupin injury than POST herbicide options. Certain POST herbicides, such as thifensulfuron, chlorimuron, and fomesafen, are not viable herbicide options for use in lupin. Other POST options, like fluazifop, 2,4-DB, sethoxydim, and imazethapyr, may offer additional options for weed control in lupin without increasing crop injury.
The results of this experiment show that good weed control can be achieved by using a broad spectrum of herbicides that are currently not registered for use in US lupin production such as imazethapyr, flumioxazin, and linuron. With glyphosate and
4. Sources of materials
1 John Deere 1700 four-row vacuum planter, John Deere, Moline, IL.
2 Four-row ripper/bedder, Kelley Manufacturing Co., Tifton, GA.
3Two-row Massey Ferguson plot combine, AGCO Corporation, Duluth, GA.
4Statistical Analysis Systems®, version 9.2, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
5 S-metolachlor, Dual Magnum®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC.
6 Linuron, Lorox® DF, Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
7 Metribuzin, Sencor®, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC.
8 Diclosulam, Strongarm®, Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Indianapolis, IN.
9 Flumioxazin, Valor®, Valent USA Corporation, Walnut Creek, CA.
10 Imazethapyr, Pursuit®, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
11 Pendimethalin, Prowl® H2O, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
12 Fluazifop, Fusilade® DX, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC.
13 Chlorimuron, DupontTM Classic®, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, DE.
14 Sethoxydim, Poast Plus®, BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC.
15 Thifensulfuron, DupontTM Harmony® SG, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Wilmington, DE.
16 Fomesafen, Reflex®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC.
17 Glyphosate, Honcho® Plus, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO.
18 Carfentrazone, Aim® EC, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA.
19 Clove/cinnamon oil, Weed ZapTM, JH Biotech, Inc., Ventura, CA.
References
- 1.
Clark, M. S., W. R. Horwath, C. Shennan, K. M. Scow, W. T. Lantni and H. Ferris. 1999. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield-limiting factors in conventional, low-input, and organic tomato systems. Agri Ecosys Environ 73: 257-270. - 2.
Hill, G. D. 2005. The use of lupin seed in human and animal diets – revisited. In : E. van Santen and G.D. Hill (eds)Mexico, Where Old and New World Lupins Meet . Proceedings of the 11th International Lupin Conference, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. May 4-5, 2005. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0- 86476-165-1. - 3.
Noffsinger, S. L. and E. van Santen. 2005. Evaluation of Lupinus albus L. Germplasm for the Southeastern USA.Crop Sci 45:1941-1950. - 4.
Payne, W. A., C. Chen and D. A. Ball. 2004. Alternative crops agronomic potential of alternative crops agronomic potential of narrow-leafed and white lupins in the Inland Pacific Northwest. Agro J 96:1501-1508. - 5.
van Santen, E. and D. W. Reeves. 2003. Tillage and rotation effects on lupin in double-cropping systems in the southeastern USA. In: E. van Santen and G. D. Hill (eds). Wild and Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles . Proceedings of the 10th International Lupin Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. ISBN 0-86476-153-8. - 6.
Putnam, D. H., E. S. Oplinger, L. L. Hardman, and J. D. Doll. 1989. Lupine, Alternative Field Crops Manual , University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension; University of Minnesota: Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products and the Minnesota Extension Service. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html - 7.
Poetsch, J. 2006. Pflanzenbauliche Untersuchungen zum ökologischen Anbau von Körnerleguminosen an sommertrockenen Standorten Südwestdeutschlands, Institut für Pflanzenbau und Grünland der Universität Hohenheim, Salzgitter, PhD-dissertation. - 8.
Knott, C. M. 1996. Tolerance of Autumn-sown determinate Lupins ( Lupinus albus ) to herbicides. Test of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 17.Ann Appl Biol 128. - 9.
Mitich, L. W., K. Cassman and N. L. Smith. 1989. Evaluation of herbicides at three times of application in grain lupine. Research Progress Report pp. 313-314. - 10.
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed Control in white lupine. Research Progress Report . - 11.
Mitich, L. W., K. G. Cassman, K. J. Larson and N. L. Smith. 1987. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides for control of winter annual weeds in “Minnesota Ultra” lupins. Research Progress Report pp 222-223. - 12.
Penner, D., R. H. Leep, F. C. Roggenbuck and J. R. Lempke. 1993. Herbicide efficacy and tolerance in sweet white lupin. Weed Technol 7:42-46. - 13.
Ivany, J. A. and K. V. McCully. 1994. Evaluation of herbicides for sweet white lupin ( Lupinus albus ).Weed Technol 8:819-823. - 14.
Chambers, A., G. Code and G. Scammell. 1995. Annual ryegrass and volunteer cereal control in lupins using selective post-emergence herbicides. Austr J Exper Agri 35:1141-1149. - 15.
Hashem, A., R. M. Collins, and D. G. Bowran. 2011. Efficacy of interrow weed control techniques in wide row narrow-leaf lupin. Weed Technol 25:135-140. - 16.
Crop Protection Reference (CPR). 2011. 27th edition of Greenbook’s Crop Protection Reference . Vance PublishingCorporation. Lenexa, KS. - 17.
Noffsinger, S. L. 1998. Physiology and management of winter-type white lupin ( Lupinus albus L.). Auburn, AL: PhD. Diss. Auburn University. - 18.
Noffsinger, S. L., C. Huyghe and E. van Santen. 2000. Analysis of grain-yield components and inflorescence levels in winter-type white lupin. Agron J 92:1195-1202. - 19.
Fua, J. M. 1981. Weed control in direct-drilled lupins using simazine and post-emergence herbicides in Lupinus angustifolius. In: Proceedings of the 6th Australian Weeds Conference. September 13-18 1981. City of Gold Coast, Queensland. - 20.
[20 Hardcastle, W. S. 1979. Soybean cultivar response to metribuzin in solution culture. Weed Sci 27: 278-279. - 21.
Nelson, K. A., K. A. Renner and R. Hammerschmidt. 2002. Cultivar and herbicide selection affects soybean development and the Incidence of Sclerotinia. Agron J 94: 1270-1281. - 22.
Prostko, E. P., B. A. Majek, and J. Ingerson-Mahar. 1996. The effect of chlorimuron/linuron combinations on soybean ( Glycine max) growth and yield.Weed Technol 10: 519-521. - 23.
Taylor-Lovell, S., L. M. Wax, and R. Nelson. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean ( Glycine max ) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin.Weed Technol 15: 95-102. - 24.
Bailey, W. A., J. W. Wilcut, D. L. Jordan, C. W. Swann, and V. B. Langston. 1999. Weed management in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea ) with diclosulam preemergence.Weed Technol 13: 450-456. - 25.
Reddy, K. N. 2000. Weed control in soybean ( Glycine max ) with cloransulam and diclosulam.Weed Technol 14: 293-297. - 26.
Higgins, J. M., T. Whitwell, E. C. Murdock, and J. E. Toler. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory ( Ipomoea lacunosa ) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoeae hederacea ) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen.Weed Sci 36: 345-353. - 27.
Wilson, R. G. 2005. Response of dry bean and weeds to fomesafen and fomesafen tank mixtures. Weed Technol 19: 201-206. - 28.
Dittman, B. 1999. Chemcial weed control in Lupinus Luteus andLupinus Albus production.In : E. van Santen, M. Wink, S. Weissmann, and P. Roemer (eds).Lupin, an Ancient Crop for the New Millenium . Proceedings of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/Müritz, 20-24 June, 1999; pp. 70-73 International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand. ISBN 0-86476-123-6.