Next Article in Journal
Assessment of the Use of Geographically Weighted Regression for Analysis of Large On-Farm Experiments and Implications for Practical Application
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Elevated Temperature and CO2 Concentration on Seedling Growth of Ventenata dubia (Leers) Coss. and Bromus tectorum L.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/agronomy10111719
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

Weed Control and Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Response to Mixtures of a Blended Foliar Fertilizer and Postemergence Herbicides

by
Benjamin H. Lawrence
*,
Huntington T. Hydrick
,
Jason A. Bond
,
Bobby R. Golden
,
Thomas W. Allen
and
Tameka Sanders
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38772, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(11), 1719; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111719
Submission received: 31 August 2020 / Revised: 27 October 2020 / Accepted: 28 October 2020 / Published: 5 November 2020
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Growers commonly mix foliar fertilizers with postemergence (POST) herbicides to reduce application costs and/or to decrease soybean injury. Field studies conducted in 2015 and 2016 in Stoneville, MS, evaluated the impact on weed control and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) injury, growth, and yield when combining a blended foliar fertilizer with POST herbicide applications. Herbicide treatments included no herbicide and glyphosate alone and in combination with S-metolachlor, fomesafen, or lactofen. The blended foliar fertilizer was applied at 0, 0.39, and 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1. In the Weed Control Study, 14 antagonistic effects at various evaluations were detected on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) control 7, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT) when a blended foliar fertilizer at 0.39 or 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 was mixed with glyphosate alone or combined with S-metolachlor, fomesafen, or lactofen. Of the 14 total effects, nine were detected with foliar fertilizer at the higher rate of 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1. Seven antagonistic effects were detected for both weed species regardless of herbicide treatment or foliar fertilizer rate. The only treatment combination in which an antagonistic effect was not detected was glyphosate plus lactofen plus foliar fertilizer at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1. Blended foliar fertilizer did not influence soybean injury. In the Agronomic Study, blended foliar fertilizer did not impact soybean injury, height, dry wt., nutrient conc., or yield. Foliar fertilizer in combination with POST soybean herbicides did not reduce soybean injury and produced inconsistent effects on weed control across herbicide treatments and between weed species.

1. Introduction

Amaranthus ssp., known collectively as pigweeds, belong to the family Amaranthaceae and have ranked among the top ten most troublesome weeds in southern U.S. soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) since the early 1970s [1,2,3]. Among eight southern U.S. states surveyed in 2013, Palmer amaranth was ranked as the most troublesome weed of cotton Gossypium hirisutum (L.) and soybean in seven and three states, respectively [4]. Palmer amaranth Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Watts is one of thirteen weed species in Mississippi to exhibit herbicide resistance [5]. In 2008, Palmer amaranth was confirmed resistant to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors in Mississippi [6].
With timely applications, glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth can be managed in soybean with herbicides other than glyphosate and ALS inhibitors [7]. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitors have become staple herbicides for PRE and POST weed control in soybean. Fomesafen is a member of the diphenylether family of PPO inhibitors labeled in soybean, and it controls common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.), prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.), and Palmer amaranth [8]. Soybean yield was greater when fomesafen was applied POST to Palmer amaranth [7].
Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) is one of the more problematic weeds in U.S. soybean production [9]. Mississippi and Arkansas ranked barnyardgrass as the fourth and eighth most troublesome weed in soybean production systems in 2013, respectively [4]. In addition, barnyardgrass is a troublesome weed around the world with resistance reported to 11 herbicide modes of action (MOA) [10]. Recently, Tennessee became the first state to confirm GR barnyardgrass [11]. A barnyardgrass population in Mississippi has developed resistance to four MOA [10,12]. Glyphosate has been a principal herbicide for barnyardgrass control [13,14,15]. Research has reported, 82, 97, and 98% reduction in barnyardgrass density, dry wt., and seed production, respectively, 84 d after an application of glyphosate at 0.450 kg a.e. ha−1 in GR corn (Zea mays L.) [14]. Plant health management is the practice of understanding and overcoming several factors limiting plants from achieving their full genetic potential [16]. This concept can be applied to crops, trees, or any other plant [16]. The full genetic potential of a plant is a known or approximated capacity of a plant to grow, develop, and reproduce without limiting factors [16]. Breeding has increased the genetic potential of plants; however, plant health management focuses on improving upon the preexisting potential and not the modifications developed through breeding and genetic engineering [16].
Foliar fertilizers are routinely applied in a variety of crops to aid in plant health management [17,18,19,20]. Research has shown inconsistent soybean and cotton responses to foliar fertilizers [19,21,22]. Soybean yield increases attributed to foliar fertilizer applications have been small and infrequent [21]. Soybean yield increase has been reported with a 10-1-3-0.5 liquid nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium-sulfur (N-P-K-S) fertilizer applied at the R5 to R6 growth stages [18]. Greater soybean yields compared with the nontreated following various rates of 3-8-15 (N-P-K) fertilizers applied at the V5 growth stage [23]. Most research suggests no soybean yield increase with foliar S or micronutrients applied at reproductive stages [17,20]. The addition of micronutrients boron (B), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn) to an N-P-K-S (10-4-8-1) fertilizer failed to improve soybean yields [19]. Other research reported reduction in soybean yield following foliar fertilization with observed reduction attributed to leaf injury from the application [21].
The option to mix different herbicide MOA provides the potential for increased weed control and a reduction in application costs [24]. However, some components of herbicide mixtures can synergize or antagonize others. Synergism is the simultaneous action of two or more components in which the total response of the combination is greater than the sum of the individual components [25]. Antagonism is reported when the total response is less than the sum of the individual components [25]. Interactions between components (water, foliar fertilizers, and other herbicides) of herbicide mixtures have been documented throughout the literature [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
Tests for synergistic, antagonistic, and additive responses have evolved over time. Synergistic effects on wild oat Avena fatua (L.) and wild mustard Sinapis arvensis (L.) control utilizing Colby’s method [32,33]. The nonlinear model developed by [34] was utilized by [35] to evaluate a safening interaction on rice Oryza sativa (L.) treated with clomazone mixed with bensulfuron or halosulfuron. In 2010, [36] expanded on the nonlinear model creating the augmented mixed-model methodology providing a more versatile model than [34]. The augmented mixed-model methodology has been utilized by [37] to determine synergistic and antagonistic effects on red rice Oryza sativa (L.) and barnyardgrass control when applying mixtures of propanil and imazamox.
Results of herbicide-by-herbicide interactions are abundant throughout the literature. Synergism on red rice control was reported with propanil and imazamox mixtures; however, the same mixtures antagonized barnyardgrass control [37]. Antagonism on barnyardgrass control when the ACCase inhibitors quizalofop or sethoxydim were combined with the PPO inhibitor lactofen [38]. Starke and Oliver (1998) reported antagonism when fomesafen was combined with glyphosate on entireleaf morningglory Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula (Gray) but not on pitted morningglory Ipomoea lacunosa (L.).
Fomesafen and lactofen are common treatments for Palmer amaranth control in soybean, but soybean injury is often observed following POST applications [5,39,40]. In an effort to reduce the number of applications and decrease soybean injury, growers commonly mix foliar fertilizers with POST herbicides [41,42]. Due to limited research on the interaction between herbicides and foliar fertilizers, field studies were conducted detailing the impact of mixing a blended foliar fertilizer with POST soybean herbicides. The objectives were to (1) evaluate the influence of a blended foliar fertilizer on soybean injury and weed control with POST herbicides and (2) to characterize soybean growth and yield following POST applications of mixtures of herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Weed Control Study

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 weed control when a blended foliar fertilizer was mixed with 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 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 was utilized in all siteyears and planted with a John Deere small-plot air planter (John Deere 1730, Deer and Company, Moline, IL, USA).
The study was designed as a two-factor factorial within a randomized complete block with four replications. Factor A was herbicide treatment and included no herbicide, glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) at 1.36 kg a.e. 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 a.i. ha−1, fomesafen (5-2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide) at 0.375 kg ha−1, or lactofen (2-ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl 5-2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl) phenoxy-2-nitorbenzoate) at 0.128 kg a.i. ha−1. Factor B was liquid foliar fertilizer rate and consisted of a blended foliar fertilizer with a 4-0-0-3-3-3-0.25%, N-P-K-S-Mn-Zn-B guaranteed analysis (Brandt SmartTrio, foliar fertilizer, Brandt Consolidated, Inc., Springfield, IL, USA) applied at 0, 0.39, and 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1. Liquid foliar fertilizer rates were based on product label [43] and unpublished fertility research from Mississippi. Treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted sprayer calibrated to deliver 140 L ha−1 at 248 kPa, fitted with extended range flat-fan nozzles (XR10002 TeeJet® Wheaton, IL, USA), at the V3 soybean growth stage.
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 [44]. 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 were harvested using a small-plot combine (Kincaid Equipment, 210 West First St., P.O. Box 400; Haven, KS 67543, USA) on 25 Sept. 2015 and 5 Oct. 2015 and16 Sept. 2016 and 12 Oct. 2016. Yield data were adjusted to 130 g kg−1 moisture content.
Square roots of visible injury and control estimates were arcsine transformed. The transformation did not improve the homogeneity of the variance based on visual inspection of the plotted residuals; therefore, nontransformed data were utilized in all analyses. Soybean injury and weed control data were analyzed utilizing the augmented mixed-model methodology described by Blouin et al. [36]. 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 random variable parameters [45].
Type III Statistics were utilized to test the fixed effects of herbicide and foliar fertilizer for soybean height and yield. Least square means were calculated and mean separation (p ≤ 0.05) was produced using PDMIX800 in SAS v. 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc. 100 SAS Campus Drive Cary, NC 27513-2414, USA), which is a macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings [46]. When injury and weed control data did not return a significant synergistic or antagonistic effect [36], data were analyzed as described for soybean height and yield.

2.2. Agronomic Study

A field study was conducted at the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center at Stoneville in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate soybean response when mixing a blended foliar fertilizer with POST herbicides. The study was performed at two sites in 2015 (2015—1 and 2015—2) and 2016 (2016—1 and 2016—2). Global position system (GPS) coordinates, series, description, pH, and organic matter (OM) for each siteyear are presented in Table 1. Each site was conventionally tilled, then planted with a John Deere small-plot air planter. ‘Pioneer 48T53’ (Pioneer Hi-Bred P.O. Johnston, IA, USA) and Asgrow 4632 were planted in 2015 and 2016, respectively.
The treatment structure and experimental design for the Agronomic Study was identical to the Weed Control Study. However, the Agronomic Study was maintained weed-free each siteyear to prevent weed interference with soybean agronomic performance. Plots were hand-weeded or treated with labeled POST and residual herbicides applied with an in-row hooded sprayer (Willmar Fabrication, Benson, MN, USA) to prevent foliar soybean injury.
Visible estimates of soybean injury were recorded 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAT on the previously described scale. Soybean height was recorded 14 DAT and at maturity as previously described. Soybean biomass was collected from 1 m sections of rows 1 and 4 in each plot 14 DAT. Soybean biomass samples were dried at 60 °C for 1 wk and weight converted to g m−2. Ten trifoliate leaves were collected from the uppermost fully mature nodes of plants in rows 2 and 3 of each plot 14 DAT for tissue analysis. Tissue samples were air-dried in a greenhouse for analysis. Tissue samples were digested with concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) and 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and analyzed by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) for nutrient conc. Soybean were harvested using a small-plot combine on Oct. 5, 2015, and Sept. 27 and Oct. 3, 2016. Yield data were adjusted to 13% moisture content. Data analyses were identical to the Weed Control Study.

3. Results

3.1. Weed Control Study

No synergistic or antagonistic effects were detected for soybean injury across all evaluation intervals. A main effect of herbicide treatment was detected for soybean injury at 3, 7, and 14 DAT (Table 2). Pooled across foliar fertilizer rates, glyphosate plus lactofen injured soybean more than other herbicide treatments 3 and 14 DAT. Glyphosate plus S-metolachlor injured soybean more than glyphosate alone, but not as severely as glyphosate plus fomesafen. Differences among treatments for soybean injury 7 DAT were similar as for 3 and 14 DAT (data not presented). Bronzing and necrosis of plant tissue due to lactofen and fomesafen is well-documented [5,40]. By 21 and 28 DAT, no soybean injury was observed (data not presented).
Palmer amaranth control 7 DAT with glyphosate alone was antagonized with 7% reduction by the addition of foliar fertilizer at 0.39 kg a.i. ha−1 and 11 and 13% reduction at 14 and 21 DAT, respectively, with foliar fertilizer at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 (Table 3). Control with glyphosate plus S-metolachlor was antagonized ≥11% by adding foliar fertilizer at 0.39 or 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 at 7 and 14 DAT (Table 3). Antagonism on velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti (Medik) control has been reported when glyphosate at 0.28 kg a.i. ha−1 was combined with different formulations of manganese (Mn); however, some of the antagonistic effects were overcome by adding ammonium sulfate at 20 g L−1 [42]. Palmer amaranth in the current research was controlled 66% 7 DAT, with reduction attributed to the population contained some glyphosate-susceptible and -resistant individuals.
A herbicide main effect influenced Palmer amaranth control 28 DAT (Table 2). Pooled over foliar fertilizer rates, Palmer amaranth control with glyphosate plus fomesafen was at least 7% greater than with F all other herbicide treatments. Palmer amaranth control with fomesafen is well-documented; however, published research detailing control with glyphosate plus fomesafen is limited [7,47,48,49]. Miller and Norsworthy (2016) reported 93% Palmer amaranth control with glyphosate plus fomesafen and 2,4-D 14 DAT [48]. Barkley et al. (2016) documented ≥90% control of Palmer amaranth with varying rates of fomesafen alone 28 d after transplanting sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) [47].
Palmer amaranth control with glyphosate alone was 56% and less than that with all other herbicide treatments 28 DAT (Table 2). Since glyphosate is a POST herbicide lacking residual control, it should be expected that the residual activity from fomesafen and S-metolachlor would control more Palmer amaranth than glyphosate alone 28 DAT [5,50,51]. Similar to glyphosate, there is minimal residual control expected with lactofen; however, glyphosate plus lactofen increased control of Palmer amaranth 18 and 21% compared with glyphosate alone 7 and 14 DAT, respectively (data not presented). Palmer amaranth control with glyphosate alone and glyphosate plus S-metolachlor was similar regardless of evaluation interval prior to 28 DAT (data not presented).
Barnyardgrass control was antagonized when foliar fertilizer at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 was mixed with glyphosate alone 7 and 21 DAT, glyphosate plus fomesafen 14 and 21 DAT, and glyphosate plus S-metolachlor 14 DAT (Table 4). Differences between the observed and expected levels of control ranged from 6 to 10%. Antagonism for barnyardgrass control was also detected when foliar fertilizer at 0.39 kg a.i. ha−1 was mixed with glyphosate plus fomesafen 14 DAT and glyphosate plus lactofen 21 DAT, and differences between the observed and expected levels of control were 9 and 6% for mixtures of glyphosate plus fomesafen or lactofen, respectively (Table 4).
A main effect of herbicide treatment was detected for barnyardgrass control 28 DAT (Table 2). Barnyardgrass control 28 DAT was 82% with glyphosate plus S-metolachlor due to its residual activity on small-seeded broadleaf and grass species [51]. Other research reported 88% residual control of barnyardgrass 56 DAT with glyphosate plus S-metolachlor in cotton [52]. Residual control with fomesafen primarily targets broadleaf weeds [52] and barnyardgrass control 28 DAT with glyphosate plus fomesafen in the current study was comparable to glyphosate alone or mixed with lactofen (Table 2). A main effect of foliar fertilizer was detected for barnyardgrass control 28 DAT, and the addition of foliar fertilizer at 0.39 or 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 reduced barnyardgrass control ≥4% regardless of herbicide treatment (Table 5).
Pooled across foliar fertilizer rates, glyphosate plus lactofen reduced soybean height 14 DAT 5 and 4 cm compared with the no herbicide and glyphosate alone treatments, respectively (Table 2). Similar results have been reported, where lactofen at 0.22 kg a.i. ha−1 alone or mixed with crop oil concentrate (COC) reduced soybean height 4 and 5 cm, respectively, compared with a control and COC alone [40]. Soybean height at maturity was not affected by foliar fertilizer rate and/or herbicide treatment (data not presented). Pooled across foliar fertilizer rates, soybean yield in plots receiving herbicide were similar and greater than yield in the no herbicide treatment (Table 2).

3.2. Agronomic Study

A main effect of herbicide treatment was detected for soybean injury 3, 7, and 14 DAT, soybean dry wt. 14 DAT, and soybean height 14 DAT (Table 6). Glyphosate plus lactofen resulted in the greatest soybean injury followed by glyphosate plus fomesafen. Soybean injury was less with glyphosate plus S-metolachlor compared with glyphosate plus fomesafen, but greater than glyphosate alone at all evaluation intervals.
Treatments containing a PPO inhibitor reduced soybean dry wt. ≥9% and soybean height 14 DAT ≥7.5% compared with the no herbicide treatment. Soybean dry wt. and height 14 DAT with glyphosate plus S-metolachlor were similar to plots receiving no herbicide or glyphosate alone. Foliar fertilizer rate did not affect the measured parameters. Minor differences in tissue nutrient conc. were detected; however, no explanation for these differences was apparent and all values from the analysis were within the nutrient sufficiency range (data not presented; [53]).

4. Discussion

The injury caused by POST soybean herbicide treatments evaluated in this research was not influenced by the addition of a blended foliar fertilizer; therefore, the blended foliar fertilizer (4-0-0-3-3-3-0.25%; N-P-K-S-Mn-Zn-B) evaluated herein should not be mixed with POST soybean herbicides with the intent to reduce injury.
Mixing the blended foliar fertilizer with POST soybean herbicides influenced weed control. Palmer amaranth and barnyardgrass control were antagonized 7, 14, and 21 DAT by one or more of the herbicide treatments and blended foliar fertilizer rate combinations. Across species and evaluation intervals, 14 total antagonistic effects were detected. Antagonism of glyphosate from foliar fertilizer at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 was the most common antagonistic effect across both weed species and all evaluation intervals with four detected effects. Antagonism of glyphosate plus S-metolachlor from foliar fertilizer at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 was detected three times. Of the 14 total antagonistic effects, nine were detected with foliar fertilizer at the higher rate of 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1. Seven antagonistic effects were detected for both weed species regardless of herbicide treatment or foliar fertilizer rate. The only treatment combination in which an antagonistic effect was not detected was glyphosate plus lactofen plus foliar fertilizer at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1. A grower with the intention of applying the blended foliar fertilizer (4-0-0-3-3-3-0.25%; N-P-K-S-Mn-Zn-B) at 0.78 kg a.i. ha−1 with a POST soybean herbicide should expect antagonism.
Soybean agronomic performance was not improved by mixing a blended foliar fertilizer with POST herbicide treatments. Since the blended foliar fertilizer (4-0-0-3-3-3-0.25%; N-P-K-S-Mn-Zn-B) did not affect soybean injury, height, dry wt., nutrient conc., or yield, the addition of this blended foliar fertilizer would not be economically beneficial to soybean and would represent an added expense to the grower. Even when the blended foliar fertilizer was applied with no herbicide, the agronomic performance of soybean was not improved.

5. Conclusions

Foliar fertilizer in combination with POST soybean herbicides did not reduce soybean injury and produced inconsistent effects on weed control across herbicide treatments and between weed species. Foliar fertilizers also did not improve agronomic performance of soybean. Since this research evaluated only one blended foliar fertilizer, growers should be cautious of other foliar fertilizers applied with POST herbicides in soybean. If a soybean herbicide treatment includes glyphosate, no foliar fertilizer should be added.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by the Mississippi Soybean Promotion Board.

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. The authors would like to thank the Mississippi Soybean Promotion Board for partially funding this research. 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, T.M. Weed survey-southern states: Broadleaf crops sub-section. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 2001, 54, 244–256. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mississippi State University Extension Service Weed Control Guidelines for Mississippi; Publication No. 1532; Mississippi State University Ext Serv: Starkville, MS, USA, 2019; p. 2, 243.
  6. Nandula, V.K.; Reddy, K.N.; Koger, C.H.; Poston, D.H.; Rimando, A.M.; Duke, S.O.; Bond, J.A.; Ribeiro, D.N. Multiple resistance to glyphosate and pyrithiobac in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Mississippi and response to flumiclorac. Weed Sci. 2012, 60, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. 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]
  8. Stephenson, 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]
  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. Heap, I.M. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Available online: http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp (accessed on 15 February 2017).
  11. 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]
  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. Krausz, R.F.; Young, B.G.; Kapusta, G.; Matthews, J.L. Influence of weeds competition and herbicides on glyphosate resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2001, 15, 530–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sikkema, P.H.; Shropshire, C.; Hamill, A.S.; Weaver, S.E.; Cavers, P.B. Response of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to glyphosate application timing and rate in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 2005, 19, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Riar, D.S.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Steckel, L.E.; Stephenson, D.O.; Eubank, T.W.; Scott, R.C. Assessment of weed management practices and problem weeds in the Midsouth United States-soybean: A consultant’s perspective. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 612–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cook, J.R. Advances in plant health management in the twentieth century. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2000, 38, 95–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Clapp, J.G., Jr.; Small, H.G., Jr. Influence of a foliar fertilizer on soybean yields. Agron. J. 1968, 60, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  18. Garcia, R.L.; Hanway, J.J. Foliar fertilization of soybeans during the seed-filling period. Agron. J. 1976, 68, 653–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mallarino, A.P.; Haq, M.U.; Wittry, D.; Bermudez, M. Variation in soybean response to early-season foliar fertilization among and within fields. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1220–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Poole, W.D.; Randall, G.W.; Ham, G.E. Foliar fertilization of soybean. I. Effect of fertilizer sources, rates, and frequency of application. Agron. J. 1983, 75, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haq, M.U.; Mallarino, A.P. Soybean yield and nutrient composition as affected by early season foliar fertilization. Agron. J. 2000, 92, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yin, X.; Gwathmey, O.; Main, C.; Johnson, A. Effects of sulfur application rates and foliar zinc fertilization on cotton lint yields and quality. Agron. J. 2011, 103, 1794–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haq, M.U.; Mallorino, A.P. Foliar fertilization of soybean at early vegetative stages. Agron. J. 1998, 90, 763–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Hydrick, D.E.; Shaw, D.R. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol. 1994, 8, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nash, R.G. Phytotoxic interaction studies-techniques for evaluation and presentation of results. Weed Sci. 1981, 29, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. Scroggs, D.M.; Miller, D.K.; Stewart, A.M.; Leonard, B.R.; Griffin, 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]
  29. Starke, R.J.; Oliver, L.R. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 1998, 46, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. Eshel, Y.; Zimdahl, R.L.; Schweizer, E.E. Basis for interactions of ethofumesate and desmedipham on sugarbeets and weeds. Weed Sci. 1976, 24, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Colby, S.R. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 1967, 15, 20–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. 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]
  35. Webster, E.P.; Mudge, C.R.; Zhang, W.; Leon, C.T. Bensulfuron and halosulfuron alter clomazone activity on rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 2006, 20, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. Bernards, M.L.; Thelen, K.D.; Penner, D. Glyphosate efficacy is antagonized by manganese. Weed Technol. 2005, 19, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Devkota, P.; Johnson, W.G. Effect of spray water pH, foliar fertilizers, and ammonium sulfate on efficacy of a 2,4-D plus glyphosate formulation. Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 2016, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Frans, R.; Talbert, R.; Marx, D.; Crowley, H. Experimental Design and Techniques for Measuring and Analyzing Plant Responses to Weed Control Practices. In Southern Weed Science Society, Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd ed.; Camper, N.D., Ed.; WSSA: Champaign, IL, USA, 1986; pp. 29–46. [Google Scholar]
  44. Anonymous. Brandt Smart Trio fertilizer label. Available online: http://www.brandt.com (accessed on 9 February 2018).
  45. Blouin, D.C.; Webster, E.P.; Bond, J.A. On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol. 2011, 25, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. 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]
  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. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. Anonymous. Flexstar Herbicide Label. Available online: http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld6BM003.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2019).
  51. Anonymous. Dual Magnum Herbicide Label. Available online: http://www.agrian.com (accessed on 27 April 2017).
  52. Scroggs, D.M.; Miller, D.K.; Griffin, J.L.; Wilcut, J.W.; Blouin, D.C.; Stewart, A.M.; Vidrine, P.R. Effectiveness of preemergence herbicide and postemergence glyphosate programs in second-generation glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 877–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mills, H.A.; Jones, J.B., Jr. Plant Analysis Handbook II: A Practical Sampling, Preparation, Analysis, and Interpretation Guide, 1st ed.; MicroMacro Publishing: Athens, GA, USA, 1996; p. 187. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, soil series, soil description, soil pH, and soil organic matter (OM) in Weed Control and Agronomic studies evaluating the interaction of a blended foliar fertilizer with POST herbicides in soybean.
Table 1. Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates, soil series, soil description, soil pH, and soil organic matter (OM) in Weed Control and Agronomic studies evaluating the interaction of a blended foliar fertilizer with POST herbicides in soybean.
SiteyearCoordinatesSoil SeriesDescriptionpHOM
1:2(v:v)%
Weed Control Study
2015-A33°26′29.18″ N, 90°54′41.92″ WDundee very fine sandy loamFine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs6.11.2
2015-B33°24′21.94″ N, 90°55′31.27″ WNewellton silty clayClayey over loamy, smectitic over mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Epiaquepts6.91.6
2016-A33°26′28.33″ N, 90°54′23.67″ WCommerce sandy clay loamFine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts6.81.6
2016-B33°24′21.94″ N 90°55′31.27″ WNewellton silty clayClayey over loamy, smectitic over mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Epiaquepts6.91.6
Agronomic Study
2015-A33°25′6.68″ N, 90°54′3.44″ WDundee very fine sandy loamFine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs6.11.3
2015-B33°24′54.02″ N, 90°54′3.44″ WDundee very fine sandy loamFine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs6.21.2
2016-A33°25′6.68″ N 90°54′3.44″ WDundee very fine sandy loamFine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaqualfs6.11.3
2016-B33°26′0.99″ N, 90°54′31.52″ WCommerce sandy clay loamFine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts6.90.6
Table
Table 2. Soybean injury 3, and 14 d after treatment (DAT), Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) control 28 DAT, soybean height 14 DAT, and soybean yield following application of mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Table 2. Soybean injury 3, and 14 d after treatment (DAT), Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) control 28 DAT, soybean height 14 DAT, and soybean yield following application of mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Herbicide TreatmentRate
(kg ae or ai ha−1)		Soybean InjuryPalmer Amaranth ControlBarnyardgrass ControlSoybean HeightYield
(kg ha−1)
3 DAT (%)14 DAT (%)28 DAT (%)28 DAT (%)14 DAT (cm)
No herbicide-0 d0 d0 d0 d38 b2660 c
Glyphosate1.371 d0 d56 c77 bc37 b3420 a
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39512 b4 b78 a74 c36 ab3560 a
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21822 a7 a71 b77 bc33 a3380 ab
Glyphosate plus S-metolachlor1.37 + 1.426 c2 c67 b82 a36 ab3330 ab
† Data are pooled over four siteyears and three foliar fertilizer rates. Means followed by the same letter for each parameter and/or evaluation interval are not different at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Antagonistic effects for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats) control 7, 14 and 21 d after treatment (DAT) with mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016.
Table 3. Antagonistic effects for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats) control 7, 14 and 21 d after treatment (DAT) with mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016.
Herbicide Treatment †Rate
(kg ae or ai ha−1)		Foliar Fertilizer Rate(kg a.i. ha−1)
0.390.78
Expected (%) ‡Observed (%) ††p-Value ‡‡Expected (%) ‡Observed (%) ††p-Value ‡‡
7 DAT
Glyphosate1.376659 *0.045366610.1185
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39583790.265183770.1025
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21882800.638782770.1831
Glyphosate plusS-metolachlor1.37 + 1.427362 *0.01427362 *0.0088
14 DAT
Glyphosate1.3766570.07186655 *0.0294
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39581770.344781740.1200
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21883800.528983780.2437
Glyphosate plusS-metolachlor1.37 + 1.427460 *0.02477460 *0.0200
21 DAT
Glyphosate1.3766580.08196653 *0.0099
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39579780.677279720.0886
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21876740.715976710.2770
Glyphosate plusS-metolachlor1.37 + 1.4269630.145169600.0502
† Evaluation interval and respective herbicide treatment. ‡ Expected values for each rate of foliar fertilizer at each evaluation interval are the same due to a lack of herbicidal activity from the foliar fertilizer; therefore, values are visual estimates of weed control for each herbicide treatment when foliar fertilizer rate was 0 kg ha−1. †† Asterisks within each evaluation interval denote antagonistic effects between herbicide treatment and foliar fertilizer rate when p ≤ 0.05. ‡‡ The p-value nested within each foliar fertilizer rate for each evaluation interval denotes significant differences between observed and expected values within the corresponding rate of foliar fertilizer. Boldness is for ease of identification significant p values.
Table
Table 4. Antagonistic effects for barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.)control 7, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT) with mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016.
Table 4. Antagonistic effects for barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.)control 7, 14, and 21 d after treatment (DAT) with mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016.
Herbicide Treatment †Rate
(kg ae or ai ha−1)		Foliar Fertilizer Rate (kg a.i. ha−1)
0.390.78
Expected (%) ‡Observed (%) ††p-Value ‡‡Expected (%) ‡Observed (%) ††p-Value ‡‡
7 DAT
Glyphosate1.3788840.13548881 *0.0274
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39583790.181083780.1082
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21885800.096485820.2646
Glyphosate plus S-
metolachlor		1.37 + 1.4282820.854682800.6181
14 DAT
Glyphosate1.3787880.729287820.0818
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.3958475 *0.01748374 *0.0087
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21885810.240485810.2942
Glyphosate plus S-
metolachlor		1.37 + 1.4286830.21638679 *0.0437
21 DAT
Glyphosate1.3785800.06978579 *0.0397
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39582790.31558272 *0.0046
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.2188377 *0.046583790.1877
Glyphosate plus S-
metolachlor		1.37 + 1.4286820.197186820.1166
† Evaluation interval and respective herbicide treatment. ‡ Expected values for each rate of foliar fertilizer at each evaluation interval are the same due to a lack of herbicidal activity from the foliar fertilizer; therefore, values are visual estimates of weed control for each herbicide treatment when foliar fertilizer rate was 0 kg ha−1. †† Asterisks within each evaluation interval denote antagonistic effects between herbicide treatment and foliar fertilizer rate when p ≤ 0.05. ‡‡ The p-value nested within each foliar fertilizer rate for each evaluation interval denotes significant differences between observed and expected values within the corresponding rate of foliar fertilizer. Boldness is for ease of identification significant p values.
Table
Table 5. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) control 28 d after treatment (DAT) with mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Table 5. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.) control 28 d after treatment (DAT) with mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Weed Control Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Foliar Fertilizer RateControl
kg a.i. ha−1%
065 a
0.3961 b
0.7860 b
† Data are pooled over four siteyears and five herbicide treatments. Means followed by the same letter are not different at p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Soybean Glycine max (L.) Merr injury 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment (DAT), soybean dry wt. 14 DAT, and soybean height 14 DAT following application of mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Agronomic Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Table 6. Soybean Glycine max (L.) Merr injury 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment (DAT), soybean dry wt. 14 DAT, and soybean height 14 DAT following application of mixtures of POST soybean herbicides and a blended foliar fertilizer applied at the V3 growth stage in the Agronomic Study at Stoneville, MS, in 2015 and 2016 †.
Herbicide TreatmentRateInjuryDry wt.Height
3 DAT7 DAT14 DAT14 DAT
kg a.e. or a.i. ha−1__________________________%__________________________g m−2cm
No herbicide-0 d0 d0 d253 a40 a
Glyphosate1.371 d1 d0 d254 a39 a
Glyphosate plus fomesafen1.37 + 0.39517 b12 b4 b230 b37 b
Glyphosate plus lactofen1.37 + 0.21829 a22 a9 a201 c35 c
Glyphosate plus S-metolachlor1.37 + 1.426 c4 c2 c245 ab39 a
† Data are pooled over four siteyears and three foliar fertilizer rates. Means followed by the same letter for each parameter and/or evaluation interval are not different at p ≤ 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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 a Blended Foliar Fertilizer and Postemergence Herbicides. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111719

AMA Style

Lawrence BH, Hydrick HT, Bond JA, Golden BR, Allen TW, Sanders T. Weed Control and Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Response to Mixtures of a Blended Foliar Fertilizer and Postemergence Herbicides. Agronomy. 2020; 10(11):1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111719

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lawrence, Benjamin H., Huntington T. Hydrick, Jason A. Bond, Bobby R. Golden, Thomas W. Allen, and Tameka Sanders. 2020. "Weed Control and Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Response to Mixtures of a Blended Foliar Fertilizer and Postemergence Herbicides" Agronomy 10, no. 11: 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111719

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