International Journal of Agronomy

International Journal of Agronomy / 2020 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 8903941 | 6 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8903941

Weed Control in Dicamba-Resistant Soybean with Glyphosate/Dicamba Applied at Various Doses and Timings

Academic Editor: Daryl Bowman
Received02 Oct 2019
Revised17 Dec 2019
Accepted18 Jan 2020
Published12 Feb 2020

Abstract

Seven field trials were completed over a three-year period (2016 to 2018) in southwestern Ontario, Canada, to assess weed control in conventional-till dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean with glyphosate/dicamba (2 : 1 ratio) applied postemergence (POST) at 3 doses (900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1) and 3 application timings (up to 5, 15, and 25 cm weeds). There was minimal soybean injury (≤2%) from treatments evaluated. Glyphosate/dicamba applied at application timing of up to 5, 15, and 25 cm weeds, controlled Amaranthus spp. (pigweed spp.) 87–96, 94–99, and 99%; Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed) 93–99, 97–99, and 99–100%; Chenopodium album (lambsquarters) 89–99, 95–100, and 99–100%; Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyardgrass) 81–84, 94–96, and 96–97%; Setaria faberi (giant foxtail) 37–90, 77–98, and 99–100%; and Setaria viridis (green foxtail) 94–96, 99, and 99–100%, respectively. Additionally, glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled Amaranthus spp. 90–97, 95–98, and 97–99%; A. artemisiifolia 95–98, 97–99, and 99–100%; C. album 92–99, 95–100, and 98–100%; E. crus-galli 84–88, 93-94, and 95-96%; S. faberi 74–95, 75–97, and 79–98%; and S. viridis 98, 98–99, and 98–100%, respectively. Weed interference reduced DR soybean yield as much as 51% compared to the highest yielding treatments. Results indicate that glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at the label doses can provide an adequate control of troublesome weeds in DR soybean. Weed control was generally most consistent when glyphosate/dicamba was applied at the highest registered dose in Ontario (1800 g·ae·ha−1) and when weeds were up to 25 cm tall.

1. Introduction

Multiple-herbicide-resistant weeds, especially glyphosate-resistant (GR) weed biotypes, have increased rapidly in respect to number of weed species and geographic areas affected over the past 12 years in Ontario. Presently, there are four weed species with confirmed resistance to glyphosate in Ontario, including Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. (Canada fleabane), Amaranthus tuberculatus L. (waterhemp), Ambrosia trifida L. (giant ragweed), and Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed) [15]. As herbicide-resistant weeds are becoming more prevalent in many parts of North America, new soybean cultivars have been developed with transgenes that provide resistance to both glyphosate and dicamba (Roundup Ready Xtend®). Dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean has transgenes that provide resistance to glyphosate through an insensitive enolpyruvyl shikimate 3-phosphate synthase (CP4 EPSPS) enzyme and to dicamba through metabolism by dicamba monooxygenase (DMO) [6].

DR soybean will allow soybean growers to incorporate dicamba, a Group 4 benzoic acid herbicide with excellent activity on nearly 100 annual, biennial, and perennial broadleaved weeds, into their cropping system. Despite being in use for more than 50 years, there are only six weed species that are currently confirmed resistant to dicamba worldwide [6, 7]. Dicamba also provides effective control of GR weeds including Amaranthus palmeri L. (palmer amaranth Wats.), A. tuberculatus, A. artemisiifolia, A. trifida, and C. canadensis [1, 5, 8, 9].

DR soybean was first introduced in Ontario in 2017, and currently, over 50% of soybean fields in eastern Canada are seeded to DR soybean cultivars. The current registered dose of glyphosate/dicamba (2 : 1 ratio premix) in DR soybean in Ontario ranges from 900 (600 + 300) to 1800 (1200 + 600) g·ae·ha−1 [10].

Earlier studies have mainly focused on GR weed control with glyphosate/dicamba in DR soybean in Ontario [1, 35, 9]. There have been little published data on the effect of glyphosate/dicamba for the control of other troublesome weeds in DR soybean in Ontario. Common problematic weeds in soybean in Ontario include Amaranthus spp. (green and redroot pigweed), A. artemisiifolia, Chenopodium album L. (common lambsquarters), Setaria viridis L. (green foxtail), Setaria faberi Herrm. (giant foxtail), and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.). P. Beauv. (barnyardgrass). The efficacy of glyphosate/dicamba applied postemergence (POST) at various application doses and application timings to control these troublesome weeds in DR soybean is not clear under Ontario environmental conditions. Dicamba, when used in combination with glyphosate in DR soybean, can provide effective broad-spectrum control of these weeds [11]. More research is also required to establish the optimal glyphosate/dicamba application dose when weeds are at different heights.

This research was established to assess control of common annual grass and broadleaved weeds in conventional-till DR soybean with glyphosate/dicamba (2 : 1 ratio premix) applied POST at three doses (900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1) and three application timings (up to 5, 15, and 25 cm weeds) in Ontario.

2. Materials and Methods

There was a total of seven field experiments which included two experiments (one in 2017 and 2018) at Exeter, ON (43° 19′ 1.2108″ N, 81° 30′ 3.8736″ E), and five experiments (two in 2016, one in 2017, and two in 2018) at Ridgetown, ON (42° 26′ 41.46″ N, 81° 52′ 44.472″ W). The experiment was arranged as a factorial with four replications and established as a randomized complete block design. Factor one consisted of three glyphosate/dicamba doses (DOSE: 0, 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1) and the second factor was application timing based on weed height (TIMING: up to 5, 15, and 25 cm weeds).

Plots were 10 and 8 m long at Exeter and Ridgetown, respectively, and included four rows (spaced 75 cm apart) of DR soybean (“DKB 14-41”/“DKB 06-61”/“DKB 12-57”) seeded 4 cm deep at a seeding rate of 400,000 ha−1. Density of weed species present at each evaluation for Ridgetown and Exeter, ON, sites is shown in Table 1. Herbicides were applied using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer delivering 200 L·ha−1 at a pressure of 207 kPa. Herbicides were applied when weeds were up to approximately 5, 15, and 25 cm in height. The boom for the sprayer was 1.5 m long equipped with four ULD 120-02 (Hypro, New Brighton, Minnesota) nozzles spaced 0.5 m apart producing a spray width of 2.0 m (ground level).


Weed speciesTimingWeed density (#m−2)
R-2016aR-2016bR-2017E-2017R-2018aR-2018bE-2018

Amaranthus spp.4 WAA57191911116
8 WAA3517219104
10 WAC505109132

Ambrosia artemisiifolia4 WAA914125423
8 WAA92812218
10 WAC121712137

Chenopodium album4 WAA3310121221235
8 WAA3025141215133
10 WAC1810131310131

Echinochloa crus-galli4 WAA9319
8 WAA8712
10 WAC8912

Setaria faberi4 WAA99114703
8 WAA143138864
10 WAC13682884

Setaria viridis4 WAA26192825
8 WAA26122218
10 WAC2461812

Note. —: not present at location; E: Exeter; R: Ridgetown; WAC: weeks after final herbicide application; WAA: weeks after herbicide application.

Visible injury to DR soybean was assessed on a scale of 0–100 (0 = no injury and 100 = complete death) at 1 and 4 weeks after herbicide application (WAA). Weed control was evaluated on a 0–100 scale (0 = no control and 100 = complete control) at 4 and 8 WAA and 10 weeks after the final herbicide treatment (WAC). DR soybean was harvested at maturity using a small-plot combine. DR soybean seed moisture and yield (13% adjustment) were then recorded.

The GLIMMIX procedure in SAS [12] was used for data analysis. The experimental design was used to construct the model used; fixed effects were DOSE, TIMING, and the DOSE by TIMING interaction, and random effects were environment, environment by DOSE by TIMING interaction, replicate within environment, the DOSE, and TIMING by replicate within environment interactions. Fit statistics and residual plots were assessed to determine the best distribution and associated link function for each parameter, which was then used to analyze data on the model scale. The normal distribution (identity link) was used for soybean yield, and the same distribution with an arcsine square root transformation was used for percent visible soybean injury and percent visible weed control. The gamma distribution (log link) was used to analyze soybean moisture at harvest. Tukey’s adjustment was applied to pairwise comparisons before determining treatment variations at . The inverse link function or a back-transformation, where necessary, was applied to LSMEANS for presentation on the data scale. The DOSE by TIMING interaction was negligible for all parameters; therefore, only differences for the DOSE and TIMING main effects were determined [13]. The nontreated control, assigned a value of 0 for injury to the crop and weed control assessments, was excluded from the analysis because of no variance; differences between treatment means and the value zero were identified using the LSMEANS output.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Crop Response

Injury symptoms in soybean included leaf drooping and chlorosis. At 1 WAA, there was minimal visible soybean injury (<2%) from the herbicide treatments evaluated (Table 2). Injury was slightly greater when glyphosate/dicamba was applied at late timing (up to 25 cm tall weeds) compared to the earlier timings (up to 5 or 15 cm tall weeds). According to Kniss [13] meta-analysis investigating soybean response to dicamba exposure, the likelihood for non-DT soybean injury is higher when the crop is exposed to dicamba at late timing compared to earlier timing. Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 1350 and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 caused slightly higher DR soybean injury than that at 900 g·ae·ha−1.


Main effectsInjury (%)Moisture (%)Yield (T·ha−1)

Application timing
5 cm weed height0.2a15.2b2.8b
15 cm weed height0.5a14.9ab3.1ab
25 cm weed height1.6b14.6a3.2a

Glyphosate/dicamba rate
Untreated control0a16.1b1.7b
900 g·ae·ha−10.1b14.6a3.4a
1350 g·ae·ha−10.7c14.6a3.5a
1800 g·ae·ha−11.3c14.5a3.5a

Interaction
R × TNSNSNS

Note. NS: not significant at level; POST: postemergence; R: herbicide rate; T: application timing; WAA: weeks after herbicide application. Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different according to a Tukey–Kramer multiple range test at . Differences among simple effects are not presented due to negligible R × T interactions. Significance at and levels denoted by and , respectively. No soybean injury was observed at the 4 WAA evaluation.

Soybean seed moisture content was less when glyphosate/dicamba was applied to up to 25 cm tall weeds compared to when it was applied to up to 5 cm tall weeds (Table 2). There was no difference between other application timings. Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, or 1800 g·ae·ha−1 advanced DR soybean maturity as indicated by seed moisture content at harvest. There was no interaction between herbicide dose and application timing for injury, seed moisture content, and yield. The authors suggest that the delayed DR soybean maturity in the untreated control and with the early application of glyphosate/dicamba was due to greater weed interference. Soybean yield of untreated plots was as much as 51% lower than of treated plots, probably due to weed interference (Table 2). Results are similar to Underwood [14] who found as much as 41% yield loss from weed interference in DR soybean.

3.2. Amaranthus spp. (Green and Redroot Pigweed Combined)

The control of Amaranthus spp. was generally lower with the early timing compared to the late timing of glyphosate/dicamba when weeds were up to 25 cm tall. Glyphosate/dicamba applied when weeds were approximately 5, 15, and 25 cm tall controlled Amaranthus spp. 96, 99, and 99% at 4 WAA; 92, 96, and 99% at 8 WAA; and 87, 94, and 99% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). Glyphosate/dicamba at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled Amaranthus spp. 97, 98, and 99% at 4 WAA; 94, 97, and 99% at 8 WAA; and 90, 95, and 97% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). Results are similar to Johnson et al. [15] who found near-perfect control of Amaranthus spp. with glyphosate plus dicamba in DR soybean. Underwood [14] also reported 96–98% control of Amaranthus spp. at 2 WAA with glyphosate plus dicamba (900 + 300 g·ae·ha−1) in DR soybean.


Main effectsAmaranthus spp. control (%)Ambrosia artemisiifoliacontrol (%)Chenopodium album control (%)
4 WAA8 WAA10 WAC4 WAA8 WAA10 WAC4 WAA8 WAA10 WAC

Application timingNS
5 cm weed height96b92b87b99a95b93b99b94b89b
15 cm weed height99a96b94b99a98ab97ab100a96b95ab
25 cm weed height99a99a99a99a100a99a100a99a99a

DoseNSNSNSNS
Untreated control0c0c0c0c0b0b0 c0b0b
900 g·ae·ha−197b94b90b98b96a95a99b94a92a
1350 g·ae·ha−198ab97ab95ab99ab98a97a100a97a95a
1800 g·ae·ha−199a99a97a100a99a99a100a99a98a

Interaction
R × TNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS

Note. NS: not significant at level; POST: postemergence; R: herbicide rate; T: application timing; WAC: weeks after final herbicide application; WAA: weeks after herbicide application. Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different according to a Tukey–Kramer multiple range test at . Differences among simple effects are not presented due to negligible R × T interactions. Significance at and levels denoted by and , respectively.
3.3. A. artemisiifolia

The control of A. artemisiifolia tended to be generally lower with the early timing compared to the late timing of glyphosate/dicamba when weeds were up to 25 cm tall (Table 3). Glyphosate/dicamba applied at 5, 15, and 25 cm tall weeds controlled A. artemisiifolia 99, 99, and 99% at 4 WAA; 95, 98, and 100% at 8 WAA; and 93, 97, and 99% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled A. artemisiifolia 98, 99, and 100% at 4 WAA; 96, 98, and 99% at 8 WAA; and 95, 97, and 99% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). Results from this study are similar to Breitenbach et al. [16] who reported up to 99% control of A. artemisiifolia with glyphosate/dicamba in DR soybean in Minnesota, USA. Additionally, Underwood [14] reported that glyphosate plus dicamba (900 + 300 g·ae·ha−1) controlled A. artemisiifolia 98–100% in DR soybean.

3.4. C. album

The control of C. album was generally lower with the early timing compared to the late timing of glyphosate/dicamba when weeds were up to 25 cm tall. Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at up to 5, 15, and 25 cm tall weeds controlled C. album 99, 100, and 100% at 4 WAA; 94, 96, and 99% at 8 WAA; and 89, 95, and 99% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled C. album 99, 100, and 100% at 4 WAA; 94, 97, and 99% at 8 WAA; and 92, 95, and 98% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). Similar to this study, Breitenbach et al. [16] reported up to 99% control of C. album with glyphosate + dicamba in DR soybean in Rochester, MN.

3.5. E. crus-galli

The control of E. crus-galli was significantly lower when glyphosate/dicamba was applied up to 5 cm tall weeds compared to 15 and 25 cm tall weeds (Table 4). Glyphosate/dicamba applied at application timing of up to 5, 15, and 25 cm tall weeds controlled E. crus-galli 84, 95, and 96% at 4 WAA; 81, 94, and 97% at 8 WAA; and 82, 96, and 96% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 4). E. crus-galli control generally increased as the dose of the glyphosate/dicamba was increased. Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled E. crus-galli 84, 94, and 96% at 4 WAA; 87, 93, and 95% at 8 WAA; and 88, 93, and 95% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 4). In other studies, Breitenbach et al. [16] reported 98, 97, 97, and 94% control of grass species with glyphosate/dicamba applied early POST in DR soybean in Rochester, MN. Additionally, Underwood [14] reported that glyphosate plus dicamba (900 + 300 g·ae·ha−1) controlled E. crus-galli as much as 99% in DR soybean.


Main effectsEchinochloa crus-galli control (%)Setaria faberi control (%)Setaria viridis control (%)
4 WAA8 WAA10 WAC4 WAA8 WAA10 WAC4 WAA8 WAA10 WAC

Application timing
5 cm weed height84b81b82b90b51b37c94b96b95b
15 cm weed height95a94a96a98a80b77b99a99a99a
25 cm weed height96a97a96a100a99a99a100a100a99a

DoseNSNSNSNSNS
Untreated control0c0b0c0b0b0b0c0c0b
900 g·ae·ha−184b87a88b95a77a74a98b98b98a
1350 g·ae·ha−194a93a93ab97a80a75a99ab99ab98a
1800 g·ae·ha−196a95a95a98a87a79a100a100a98a

Interaction
R × TNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS

Note. NS: not significant at level; POST: postemergence; R: herbicide rate; T: application timing; WAC: weeks after final herbicide application; WAA: weeks after herbicide application. Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different according to a Tukey–Kramer multiple range test at . Differences among simple effects are not presented due to negligible R × T interactions. Significance at and levels denoted by and , respectively.
3.6. S. faberi

The control of S. faberi with glyphosate/dicamba tended to generally increase as the application timing was delayed (Table 4). Glyphosate/dicamba applied at up to 5, 15, and 25 cm tall weeds controlled S. faberi 90, 98, and 100% at 4 WAA; 51, 80, and 99% at 8 WAA; and 37, 77, and 99% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 3). There was no appreciable influence of the application dose of glyphosate/dicamba on the control of S. faberi (Table 4). Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled S. faberi 95, 97, and 98% at 4 WAA; 77, 80, and 87% at 8 WAA; and 74, 75, and 79% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 4).

3.7. S. viridis

The control of S. viridis with glyphosate/dicamba was higher when the timing was delayed (Table 4). Glyphosate/dicamba applied at application timing of up to 5, 15, and 25 cm tall weeds controlled S. viridis 94, 99, and 100% at 4 WAA; 96, 99, and 100% at 8 WAA; and 95, 99, and 99% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 4). There was no appreciable influence of the application dose of glyphosate/dicamba on the control of S. viridis (Table 4). Glyphosate/dicamba applied POST at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 controlled S. viridis 98, 99, and 100% at 4 WAA; 98, 99, and 100% at 8 WAA; and 98, 98, and 98% at 10 WAC, respectively (Table 4). Similar to this study, Underwood [14] reported that glyphosate plus dicamba (900 + 300 g·ae·ha−1) controlled S. viridis 93–97% in DR soybean.

4. Conclusions

Based on these results, glyphosate/dicamba applied postemergence at 900, 1350, and 1800 g·ae·ha−1 causes minimal injury in DR soybean. Presumed weed interference delayed DR soybean maturity and reduced DR soybean yield as much as 51%. There was an increase in DR soybean yield with the application of glyphosate/dicamba, but there was no difference in yield among application doses. DR soybean yield was lower with the early application of glyphosate/dicamba; the authors suggest that this was due to increased weed emergence and interference after the early application. There was a trend for increased weed control as the glyphosate/dicamba dose was increased and the application timing was delayed. Based on these results, glyphosate/dicamba at the manufacturer’s label doses adequately controls C. album, Amaranthus spp., A. artemisiifolia, S. faberi, S. viridis, and E. crus-galli in DR soybean. Weed control was generally least consistent with E. crus-galli and S. faberi especially when glyphosate/dicamba was applied at the lowest registered dose (900 g·ae·ha−1) and when these weeds were up to 5 cm tall. Weed control was generally most consistent when glyphosate/dicamba was applied at the highest registered dose in Ontario (1800 g·ae·ha−1) and when weeds were up to 25 cm tall. However, to reduce injury in neighbouring sensitive crops from the off-target movement of dicamba, it is recommended that glyphosate/dicamba be applied early in the season, preferably before sensitive crops emerge in adjacent fields. Long-term stewardship of the DR soybean technology is critical to minimize injury in sensitive crops due to off-target movement in adjacent fields and ensure that this valuable technology is available for the control of multiple-resistant weed biotypes.

Data Availability

The numerical data used to generate tables in this manuscript can be provided upon request to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this study came from the Grain Farmers of Ontario.

References

  1. H. P. Byker, N. Soltani, D. E. Robinson, F. J. Tardif, M. B. Lawton, and P. H. Sikkema, “Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean,” Weed Technology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 492–496, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. M. G. Schryver, N. Soltani, D. C. Hooker, D. E. Robinson, P. J. Tranel, and P. H. Sikkema, “Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus var. rudis) in Ontario, Canada,” Canadian Journal of Plant Science, vol. 97, pp. 1057–1067, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. A. C. Van Wely, “Distribution and control of glyphosate-resistant common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) in Ontario,” University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada, 2015, Thesis. View at: Google Scholar
  4. B. K. Hedges, N. Soltani, D. E. Robinson, D. C. Hooker, and P. H. Sikkema, “Influence of glyphosate/dicamba application rate and timing on the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in glyphosate/dicamba-resistant soybean,” Canadian Journal of Plant Science, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 371–374, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. P. Vink, N. Soltani, D. E. Robinson, F. J. Tardif, M. B. Lawton, and P. H. Sikkema, “Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in dicamba-tolerant soybean,” Weed Technology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 422–428, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. A. C. Rojas Ariasa, J. L. Palacio, A. Chaparro-Giraldo, and S. A. López-Pazosb, “Patents and genetically modified soybean for glyphosate resistance,” World Patent Information, vol. 48, pp. 47–51, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. I. Heap, “The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds,” 2019, http://www.weedscience.org. View at: Google Scholar
  8. D. J. Spaunhorst and K. W. Bradley, “Influence of dicamba and dicamba plus glyphosate combinations on the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis),” Weed Technology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 675–681, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. D. J. Spaunhorst, S. Siefert-Higgins, and K. W. Bradley, “Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) management in dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max),” Weed Technology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 131–141, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. [OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Area, Yield, Production and Farm Value of Specified Field Crops (Imperial and Metric Units), Ontario of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Guelph, Canada, 2019, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/index.html.
  11. D. L. Shaner, Herbicide Handbook, Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL, USA, 10th edition, 2014.
  12. [SAS] Institute Inc., SAS/STAT® 12.3 User’s Guide, Base SAS® 9.4 Procedures Guide: Statistical Procedures, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 5th edition, 2013.
  13. A. R. Kniss, “Soybean response to dicamba: a meta-analysis,” Weed Technology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 507–512, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. G. Underwood, Determining the Fit of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean for Ontario Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 2017, https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/12130/Underwood_Matthew_201801_Msc.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yM.Sc. thesis.
  15. B. Johnson, B. Young, J. Matthews et al., “Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans,” Crop Management, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 00, 2010, http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. F. R. Breitenbach, L. M. Behnken, R. Searcy, and A. Kyllo, Evaluation of A21472 for weed control in RR2-XTEND soybeans at Rochester, MN in 2016, University of Minnesota, Rochester, MN, USA, 2016, https://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/sites/appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/files/16soy08.pdf.

Copyright © 2020 Nader Soltani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

9 Views | 25 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder