Next Article in Journal
The Rise of Eleusine indica as Brazil’s Most Troublesome Weed
Next Article in Special Issue
Integrating Cultivation Practices and Post-Emergence Herbicides for ALS-Resistant False Cleavers (Galium spurium L.) Management in Durum Wheat
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Quality-Related Traits Affecting the Taste of Main Cultivated Japonica Rice Varieties in Northern China
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Management on the Content of Macro- and Microelements in Plant Shoots of a Meadow Sward of an Arrhenatheretalia Plant Community
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy15081758
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soybean Response to Saflufenacil Doses, Alone or Combined with Glyphosate, Simulating Tank Contamination

by
Leandro Galon
1,2,*,
Lucas Tedesco
1,
Rodrigo José Tonin
1,2,
Aline Diovana Ribeiro dos Anjos
1,
Eduarda Batistelli Giacomolli
1,
Otávio Augusto Dassoler
1,
Felipe Bittencourt Ortiz
1 and
Gismael Francisco Perin
1
1
Laboratory of Sustainable Management of Agricultural Systems, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Erechim Campus, Erechim 99700000, Brazil
2
Post Graduation Program in Environmental Science and Technology, Federal University of the Fronteira Sul, Erechim Campus, Erechim 99700000, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(8), 1758; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081758
Submission received: 19 June 2025 / Revised: 18 July 2025 / Accepted: 19 July 2025 / Published: 23 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Weed Biology and Ecology: Importance to Integrated Weed Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Some herbicides, such as saflufenacil, can persist as residues in sprayer tanks even after cleaning, causing phytotoxicity in sensitive crops. This study aimed to simulate potential injury caused by saflufenacil residues, applied alone or combined with glyphosate, on soybean. The field experiment was conducted using a randomized complete block design with four replicates. The treatments included glyphosate (1440 g ha−1), eight saflufenacil doses ranging from 1.09 to 70.00 g ha−1, each tested alone or combined with glyphosate, and a weed-free control, totaling 18 treatments. Phytotoxicity was assessed at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after treatment (DAT). Physiological variables were measured at 21 DAT, and grain yield components were evaluated at harvest. Saflufenacil caused increasing phytotoxicity at doses exceeding 4.38 g ha−1 when applied alone and above 2.17 g ha−1 when combined with glyphosate. The highest doses negatively affected soybean physiology and grain yield components. Soybean tolerated up to 2.17 g ha−1 saflufenacil alone and up to 1.09 g ha−1 combined with glyphosate without significant yield loss. These results highlight the importance of thorough and correct cleaning of the sprayer tank and suggest limit residue levels that avoid crop damage, helping to prevent unexpected damage to soybean in crop rotations.

1. Introduction

Soybean (Glycine max L.) is grown on about 139 million hectares worldwide, producing an estimated 421 million tons annually. Brazil is the world’s largest producer, accounting for about 40% of global output [1]. In the 2024/25 season, Brazilian soybean production is projected at 168.3 million tons, representing nearly 50% of the country’s total grain production [2]. Nonetheless, soybean yield could have been further improved by avoiding phytotoxic effects caused by residual herbicides from pre-plant desiccation treatments, especially when glyphosate is subsequently applied to the crop.
The approval of Roundup Ready® (RR) soybean in 2003 simplified weed management by enabling the widespread use of glyphosate, leading to rapid adoption of this technology due to its low cost and high efficiency [3]. However, the continuous use of glyphosate over several consecutive years, without rotation modes of action or crops, has resulted in the selection of resistant or tolerant weed species. Same examples include horseweed (Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronq., Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. and Conyza sumatrensis (Retz.) E.H. Walker), ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), sourgrass (Digitaria insularis (L.) Fedde), wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla L.), pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L. and Amaranthus palmeri Watson), daflower (Commelina benghalensis L. and Commelina diffusa Burm.f.), and morning glories (Ipomoea indivisa (Vell.) Hallier, Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth, Ipomoea purpura (L.) Roth, Ipomoea grandifolia (Dammer) O’Donell, and Ipomoea hederifolia L.) [4,5].
Weed resistance has become one of the major challenges in soybean cultivation. To mitigate it, integrated weed management strategies have been adopted, including crop rotation, use of cover crops, pre-emergence herbicides, and tank mixes of glyphosate with herbicides of different action modes [6,7,8].
Among alternative herbicides, saflufenacil has become a key tool for pre-plant desiccation, particularly effective against broadleaf weeds resistant to glyphosate—an ALS inhibitor [9,10]. In weeds with multiple resistance mechanisms, such as horseweed, saflufenacil has demonstrated control efficacy and reduced regrowth when tank-mixed with glyphosate [11,12].
It belongs to the pyrimidinedione chemical group and acts as a contact herbicide by inhibiting the protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PROTOX) enzyme, leading to the accumulation of protoporphyrin IX as toxic intermediates that disrupt chlorophyll synthesis and cause cell death [13,14]. Absorbed via leaves and roots, it translocates primarily through the xylem [9] and causes typical injury symptoms in susceptible plants, including chlorosis, necrosis caused by lipid peroxidation and membrane disruption, and eventual tissue collapse [15,16].
Despite its effectiveness, saflufenacil is known to leave persistent residues that strongly adhere to sprayer tanks and plumbing systems. When not adequately cleaned, this residue can be released during subsequent applications, causing phytotoxicity in sensitive crops [17,18,19,20]. Dicamba sprayer tank contamination, another potent adherent residue. caused up to 73% visible injury when applied to RR soybean, with a significant yield reduction [18].
Saflufenacil is commonly applied pre-plant due to its effective control of broadleaf weeds and its registration for desiccation prior to soybean planting [21]. However, if sprayer tanks are not properly cleaned, residual saflufenacil can remain and cause phytotoxicity during post-emergence herbicide applications, particularly when glyphosate is used. The phytotoxic effects are intensified by increasing saflufenacil doses and are exacerbated by the synergistic interaction between saflufenacil and glyphosate [11,22,23]. This issue has intensified with the rise in glyphosate-resistant weeds and the ban on paraquat, leading to increased use of saflufenacil. Some legumes, such as soybean, tolerate pre-emergence applications of up to 100 g ha−1 saflufenacil [24]. However, there is limited information on the safe levels of saflufenacil residues in sprayer tanks and the maximum post-emergence dose that soybean can tolerate without experiencing significant phytotoxicity or yield reduction. This study addresses a critical gap by simulating these field conditions and defining the thresholds at which saflufenacil residues begin to harm soybean. The findings offer practical guidance to farmers by helping establish safer residue limits, highlighting the importance of herbicide tank cleaning, and promoting better decision-making in integrated weed management. Thus, this study aimed to simulate the potential injury caused by residual saflufenacil in the sprayer tanks by evaluating its phytotoxicity and effects on soybean yield components when applied alone or combined with glyphosate.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Experimental Area

This experiment was conducted from November 2020 to April 2021 at the experimental area of the Federal University of Fronteira Sul (UFFS), Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil (latitude 27°43′3″ S, longitude 52°17′40″ W, altitude 650 m). Sowing was performed using a no-till system with crop residue cover. During the winter, the area was cultivated with a mixture of black oats, radish, and vetch, which was desiccated with glyphosate + sethoxydim (ZAPP Qi + Poast; 1335 + 108 g ha−1) 20 days before soybean sowing, resulting in a dry biomass yield of 6.0 t ha−1.
The soil was classified as Humic Red Latosol [25], with chemical and physical properties shown in Table 1.
The regional climate was classified as Cfa according to the Köppen classification: a humid subtropical climate with mild summers, evenly distributed rainfall, average temperatures below 22 °C during the warmest month, annual precipitation ranging from 1100 to 2000 mm, and frequent severe frosts (10–25 days per year) [26]. Meteorological data, including precipitation (mm), average temperature (°C), and relative humidity (%), recorded during the experimental period are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

This experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with four replicates and included 18 treatments, as described in Table 2. Soil fertility was corrected according to technical recommendations for soybean [28]. Fertilization at sowing consisted of 375 kg ha−1 of N-P-K (05-20-20).
Soybeans were sown in rows spaced 0.50 m apart at a density of 15.75 seeds per linear meter, equivalent to approximately 315,000 seeds per ha−1. The cultivar used was DM 5958, belonging to maturity group 5.8, with medium plant height and indeterminate growth habit.
Each experimental unit consisted of a 15 m2 plot (5 m × 3 m) with six soybean rows. The useful area comprised the four central rows, excluding 1 m from both ends, totaling 6 m2.
Herbicide applications were performed using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with four DG110.02 flat-fan nozzles (Névoa, Campinas, SP, Brazil), operating at a pressure of 210 kPa and a speed of 3.6 km h−1, delivering a spray volume of 150 L ha−1. Applications were carried out when soybean plants were at the V3 to V4 growth stages, 28 days after emergence.
At the time of application, the environmental conditions included 100% sunlight, air and soil temperatures of 33 °C and 28.3 °C, respectively, relative humidity of 32%, and wind speeds ranging from 1.1 to 3.0 km h−1. Emerging weeds were manually removed as needed. The plants were kept healthy through the other recommended agronomic practices for soybean cultivation, applied as needed.

2.3. Variables Evaluated

Phytotoxicity assessments were conducted at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after treatment (DAT), using a visual injury scale ranging from 0% (no injury) to 100% (plant death), as described by Velini et al. [29].
At 21 DAT, physiological variables were measured: internal CO2 concentration (Ci, µmol mol−1), stomatal conductance (gS, mol m−2 s−1), photosynthetic rate (A, µmol m−2 s−1), transpiration rate (E, mol m−2 s−1), water use efficiency (WUE, mol CO2 mol H2O−1), and carboxylation efficiency (CE, mol CO2 m−2 s−1). WUE and CE were calculated as A/E and A/Ci, respectively.
Measurements were taken between 8:00 and 11:00 a.m. on the first fully expanded leaf from the middle third of the plant, using an infrared gas analyzer (IRGA; ADC LCA PRO model, Analytical Development Co. Ltd., Hoddesdon, UK). Gas exchange measurements were obtained under constant photosynthetically active radiation (1000 µmol photons m−2 s−1), CO2 concentration (Ca) (~414 ± 10 µmol mol−1), and temperature (27 ± 3 °C).
Before harvest, ten plants per plot were evaluated for the number of pods per plant and grains per pod. Soybean was harvested manually when grain moisture was approximately 18%. After threshing the 6 m2 useful area, thousand-grain weight (TGW, g) and grain yield (kg ha−1) were determined. TGW was calculated from eight subsamples of 100 grains each, weighed on an analytical balance. Grain moisture was standardized to 13% for yield calculations.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were subjected to tests for normality and homogeneity of variances. After confirming the normality of residuals, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using the F-test. When significant differences were detected, treatment means were compared using the Scott–Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05). All statistical analyses were performed using Sisvar software, version 5.6 [30].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Phytotoxicity in Soybean Due to Application of Saflufenacil Alone or Combined with Glyphosate

Increasing doses of saflufenacil, whether applied alone or combined with glyphosate, caused progressively more severe phytotoxicity in soybean (cultivar DM 5958 IPRO; Dom Mario, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil) from 7 to 35 days after treatment (DAT) (Table 3). Visual injury symptoms were evident at very low doses, above 4.38 g ha−1 when applied alone, and as low as 2.17 g ha−1 when combined with glyphosate, indicating high sensitivity of soybean to this herbicide.
Even at 8.75 g ha−1, phytotoxicity reached 55% at 7 DAT, highlighting the high potential of saflufenacil to cause damage to soybean at very low concentrations (Table 3). These findings align with those of Barbieri et al. [30], who reported significant phytotoxicity in soybean grown on soils with low retention capacity at doses of 9.86 g ha−1, which represents only 14% of the recommended label dose. Such results support the hypothesis that herbicide residues from inadequately cleaned sprayer tanks can cause significant phytotoxic effects even without intentional application to soybean.
The observed phytotoxicity can be attributed to the mode of action of saflufenacil, as it is a protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor. In addition, saflufenacil can disrupt the hormonal balance of the plant by interfering with abscisic acid and ethylene synthesis, thus impairing defense mechanisms and stress tolerance. It can also affect the integrity of electron transport chains in chloroplasts and mitochondria, reducing photosynthetic efficiency and causing the accumulation of toxic compounds in tissues. Soybeans are particularly susceptible because of their limited ability to metabolize and detoxify the herbicide, leading to accumulation of the active ingredient. Even sublethal doses can impair early growth, reduce active leaf area, and affect reproductive development [13,31]. Symptoms include membrane disruption and tissue necrosis, manifested as chlorosis, wilting, and necrosis, especially in young leaves [16].
As expected, glyphosate alone did not cause phytotoxicity in soybeans due to the presence of the glyphosate resistance gene (Roundup Ready®) in the soybean cultivar used, conferring high selectivity to the herbicide [32]. However, the combination of saflufenacil with glyphosate intensified phytotoxicity, particularly at lower saflufenacil doses, due to the synergistic action of two herbicides. While saflufenacil induces oxidative stress, glyphosate inhibits the synthesis of key antioxidant compounds [33]. This interaction likely exacerbated damage to cellular membranes and photosynthetic tissues, particularly in young leaves. Similar results were reported by Yin et al. [31] and Salomão et al. [34], who showed that PPO inhibitors can significantly damage soybean, especially when combined with herbicides affecting complementary metabolic pathways such as glyphosate.
Saflufenacil applied alone, up to 2.17 g ha−1, caused mild phytotoxicity symptoms in soybean up to 14 DAT, which was even reduced to injury levels below 4% at 35 DAT (Table 3). This recovery pattern is likely due to rapid herbicide degradation in soil and the soybean’s ability to repair initial damage caused by low saflufenacil doses [30]. At sublethal isolated doses, herbicide availability in plant tissues is lower, reducing oxidative stress and allowing for physiological repair mechanisms [35,36].
Acceptable phytotoxicity levels in soybean vary depending on herbicide type, dosage, crop stage, environmental conditions, and tank mixtures with adjuvants or foliar fertilizers [37]. Generally, visual phytotoxicity levels between 10 and 20% are tolerated if these do not adversely affect crop development or yield [38], which indicates that the visual symptoms observed with saflufenacil doses up to 2.17 g ha−1 are accepted by selectivity standards for soybeans.
Between 7 to 35 DAT, soybean showed a clear trend of progressive recovery from phytotoxicity symptoms, particularly at the lower saflufenacil doses (Table 3), likely driven from activation of physiological mechanisms of detoxification and cellular repair, as well as herbicide degradation in soil and plant tissues [39]. It has been also observed in treatments combined with glyphosate due to compound metabolism and foliar tissue regeneration. On the other hand, recovery was less pronounced in mixtures, possibly due to herbicide synergy, which more severely impairs plant antioxidant systems [32]. These findings highlight that soybean selectivity to herbicide treatments depends on dose, mixture type, application conditions, and soil and climatic factors.
These findings highlight the importance of proper dose management, mixture formulation, and equipment cleaning to minimize injury and ensure soybean selectivity when using combined herbicides.

3.2. Effects of Saflufenacil and Glyphosate, Applied Alone or in Tank Mix, on Soybean Physiology

Saflufenacil significantly affected physiological variables in soybean (Table 4). Reductions in internal CO2 concentration (Ci), stomatal conductance (gS), photosynthetic rate (A), water use efficiency (WUE), and carboxylation efficiency (CE), were observed, indicating impaired carbon assimilation and photosynthetic efficiency, since PPO-inhibiting herbicides can increase oxidative stress in sensitive plants [10,40,41]. According to Hungria et al. [42], reductions in photosynthetic and transpiration rates after herbicide application can be explained by damage to mesophyll cells and disruption of stomatal function, impairing CO2 fixation and energy production. However, these impacts occurred even in the absence of major changes in transpiration (E), suggesting partial stomatal function was maintained for thermal regulation.
In addition, a reduction in Ci in saflufenacil-treated plants, both alone and combined with glyphosate at certain doses (alone: 4.38–35 g ha−1; tank mixture: 2.17, 52.5, and 70 g ha−1; Table 4), and in the photosynthetic rate negatively affects soybean productivity because it directly compromises the production of photoassimilates, such as sugars and starches, which are essential for plant growth and grain filling. When Ci decreases, often due to stomatal closure in response to stress, there is less CO2 available inside the leaf for the Calvin cycle, reducing carbon fixation. As a result, biomass production declines, and fewer energy resources are available for pod and seed development, consecutively affecting the crop’s final yield [34,42,43,44].
The reduction in water use efficiency (WUE) after application of saflufenacil, alone and combined with glyphosate (Table 4), also reflects a lower capacity of the plant to fix carbon per unit of water transpired, indicating impaired CO2 assimilation under herbicide stress, which was previously reported by Ribeiro et al. [43], and by Takano et al. [13], who demonstrated that the combination of glyphosate and PPO inhibitors more intensely compromises soybean physiological mechanisms.

3.3. Impact of Saflufenacil and Glyphosate, Applied Alone or Combined with Glyphosate, on Soybean Yield Components

Saflufenacil significantly reduced yield components, including number of pods per plant (NPP), number of grains per plant (NGP), thousand-grain weight (TGW), and grain yield (GY), especially at higher doses or when combined with glyphosate (Table 5). In contrast, glyphosate applied alone resulted in the highest yields, surpassing the weed-free control in TGW (3%) and GY (12%). This may be attributed to glyphosate’s selectivity and effective weed suppression, leading to reduced crop competition and enhanced growth.
Yield reductions in saflufenacil-treated plants are strongly linked to early-stage phytotoxicity and physiological disruption. Impairment of photosynthetic parameters such as A and CE compromised the plant’s ability to produce and allocate photoassimilates to both initial growth [40] and reproductive organs, resulting in lower grain set and filling.
A proportional reduction in soybean grain yield (GY) was observed with increasing saflufenacil doses, both alone and combined with glyphosate (Table 5). Glyphosate alone resulted in the highest GY among all treatments, even exceeding that of the weed-free control. This superior performance may be because while manual weeding is effective in removing weeds, it can disturb the soil, damage soybean roots, and allow for weed regrowth, particularly after rainfall or incomplete removal in the sowing rows. In contrast, glyphosate provides more consistent and lasting weed control, minimizing early competition and promoting optimal crop development. These results are consistent with previous findings showing that transgenic soybean treated with glyphosate tends to outperform manually weeded plots due to reduced weed interference and increased operational efficiency [23]. Additionally, glyphosate caused no phytotoxicity effects on soybean throughout the evaluation period (7–35 DAT; Table 3), which also explains the higher yields observed. Several studies confirm that glyphosate, when used appropriately, is not phytotoxic to soybean and supports a favorable environment for growth and productivity [13,43,45].
Grain yield reductions were most pronounced in treatments involving higher saflufenacil doses, either alone or combined with glyphosate (Table 5). The losses are attributed to increased phytotoxicity, particularly at higher doses, which negatively affected early plant development and interfered with physiological processes crucial for grain filling. Similar findings were reported by Conte et al. [46], who showed that herbicides with high oxidative potential, such as PPO inhibitors, can disrupt plant metabolism and hinder crop performance.
Glyphosate alone increased grain yield by 9.65% compared to the average yield of the weed-free control and the most tolerant treatments (saflufenacil at 1.09 and 2.17 g ha−1, and the glyphosate + saflufenacil mixture at 1440 + 1.09 g ha−1) (Table 5). Compared to treatments involving higher saflufenacil doses (4.38 to 70.00 g ha−1, alone or combined with glyphosate), glyphosate alone resulted in up to 54% greater yield (Table 5). These findings indicate that even relatively low doses of saflufenacil can significantly reduce yield due to phytotoxicity [46] and physiological changes [47].
Saflufenacil applied alone at doses up to 2.17 g ha−1 and combined with glyphosate up to 1.09 g ha−1 did not cause significant yield reductions (Table 5). These treatments showed yields comparable to or higher than those of the weed-free control, indicating that soybean can tolerate low levels of saflufenacil without compromising productivity. This is particularly relevant in scenarios of accidental sprayer tank contamination, where minimal residues may unintentionally reach the crop.
Despite the risk, the results suggest that saflufenacil at or below these thresholds does not result in yield loss, highlighting the importance of accurate herbicide dosing and reinforcing soybean’s tolerance to small quantities of this herbicide. These findings are supported by Dilliott et al. [45], who found that sub-lethal exposure to saflufenacil did not significantly affect yield components, underscoring the crop’s physiological resilience to low residue levels.
Among all herbicide treatments, only glyphosate alone did not cause phytotoxicity (Table 3); it exhibited minimal effects on physiological variables and preserved grain yield. In contrast, even small amounts of saflufenacil (especially above 1.09 g ha−1) led to significant crop injury and yield losses. Therefore, proper sprayer tank cleaning after desiccation applications is critical to avoid unintended contamination in sensitive crops like soybean.
It is also important to highlight that our study assumes proper sprayer tank cleaning, where rinse water containing herbicide residues is disposed of correctly in designated areas to prevent environmental and agronomic risks. Safe handling practices such as collecting rinse water in containment systems, reusing it only under controlled and legally compliant conditions, or treating it before disposal, are essential to prevent contamination of non-target plants, soil and water sources.
In future studies, we will assess the amount of saflufenacil retained in the sprayer tank and distribution system and explore practical field strategies to minimize contamination and injury risks [48,49].

4. Conclusions

This study is the first in Brazil to simulate the impact of saflufenacil residues on soybeans, replicating scenarios where sprayer tanks are not properly cleaned after desiccation applications. The results show that:
1. Saflufenacil doses above 2.17 g ha−1, alone or combined with glyphosate, caused severe phytotoxicity and significant yield reductions in soybean.
2. Glyphosate applied alone caused no phytotoxicity and resulted in the highest soybean grain yield.
3. Low doses of saflufenacil (up to 2.17 g ha−1 alone or 1.09 g ha−1 with glyphosate) were tolerated by the crop without causing severe phytotoxicity, physiological damage or significant yield losses.
4. Tank mixtures of saflufenacil and glyphosate intensified phytotoxicity effects and reduced grain yield, even at low doses.
5. Herbicide residues adhering to sprayer tanks can severely impact sensitive crops like soybean, highlighting the critical importance of rigorous and thorough equipment cleaning.
Future research should identify the most sensitive phenological stages of soybean to herbicide residues, determine the minimum doses capable of causing physiological or yield impacts, and expand the evaluation to other herbicides and crops. These studies will help guide best practices for safer herbicide use, tank decontamination, and protect crop productivity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.G., L.T. and R.J.T.; methodology, L.T. and F.B.O.; software, G.F.P. validation, G.F.P., O.A.D. and A.D.R.d.A.; formal analysis, E.B.G.; investigation, L.T.; resources, L.G.; data curation, G.F.P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J.T.; writing—review and editing, L.G.; visualization, F.B.O.; supervision, A.D.R.d.A. and E.B.G.; project administration, G.F.P. and O.A.D.; funding acquisition, L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq/Universal, grant number 403457/2023-8), the Research Support Foundation of Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS, grant number 24/2551-0001003-3), the Federal University of Fronteira Sul (UFFS, grant number PES-2024-0282), and the Studies and Projects Financing Agency (FINEP, grant number 0257/22).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

L Galon is thankful to the CNPq/PQ (process No. 312652/2023-2) for his fellowship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. USDA—United States Department of Agriculture. Available online: https://www.usda.gov (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  2. CONAB—Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Monitoring the Brazilian Grain Harvest. Available online: https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  3. Adegas, F.S.; Correia, N.M.; Silva, A.F.; Concenço, G.; Gazziero, D.L.P.; Dalazen, G. Glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean and corn in Brazil: Past, present, and future. Adv. Weed Sci. 2022, 40, e0202200102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Holkem, A.S.; Silva, A.L.; Bianchi, M.A.; Corassa, G.; Ulguim, A.R. Weed management in Roundup Ready® corn and soybean in Southern Brazil: Survey of consultants’ perception. Adv. Weed Sci. 2022, 40, e020220111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Heap, I. The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database [Internet]. Available online: http://www.weedscience.org (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  6. Liu, X.; Merchant, A.; Xiang, S.; Zong, T.; Zhou, X.; Bai, L. Managing herbicide resistance in China. Weed Sci. 2021, 69, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oreja, F.H.; Inman, M.D.; Jordan, D.L.; Vann, M.; Jennings, K.M.; Leon, R.G. Effect of cotton herbicide programs on weed population trajectories and frequency of glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus palmeri. Weed Sci. 2022, 70, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lamego, F.P.; Nachtigall, J.R.; Machado, Y.M.S.; Langer, C.O.; Polino, R.C.; Bastiani, M.O. Amaranthus hybridus resistance to glyphosate: Detection, mechanisms involved and alternatives for integrated management. Adv. Weed Sci. 2024, 42, e020240046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cavichioli, B.G.; Barbieri, G.F.; Pigatto, C.S.; Leães, G.P.; Kruse, N.D.; Ulguim, A.R. Control and translocation of saflufenacil in fleabane (Conyza spp.) according to plant integrity. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agro Medellín. 2021, 74, 9523–9530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Parreira, M.L.; Côrrea, F.R.; Silva, N.F.; Cavalcante, W.S.S.; Ribeiro, D.F.; Rodrigues, E. Herbicides with potential for desiccation of pre-sowing areas of soybean crops. Braz. J. Sci. 2023, 2, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dalazen, G.; Kruse, N.D.; Machado, S.L.O.; Balbinot, A. Synergism in the combination of glyphosate and saflufenacil for the control of horseweed. Pesqui. Agropecu. Trop. 2015, 45, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Correia, N.M. Management and development of fleabane plants in central Brazil. Planta Daninha 2020, 38, e020238215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Takano, H.K.; Oliveira, R.S., Jr.; Constantin, J.; Osipe, J.B.; Alonso, D.G.; Pagnoncelli, F. Biotypes of Conyza sumatrensis resistant to glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Planta Daninha 2013, 31, 775–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, X.; Song, C.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, H.; Hu, D.; Song, R. Design and synthesis of novel PPO-inhibiting pyrimidinedione derivatives safed towards cotton. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2023, 193, 105449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Garnica, V.C.; Jhala, A.J.; Harveson, R.M.; Giesler, L.J. Impact assessment of residual soil-applied pre-emergence herbicides on the incidence of soybean seedling diseases under field conditions. Crop Prot. 2022, 158, e105987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Araújo, H.H.; Soares, G.D.D.; Dias-Pereira, J.; Silva, L.C.; Machado, V.M. Impact of safufenacil and glyphosate based herbicides on the morphoanatomical and development of Enterolobium contortisiliquum (Vell.) Morong (Fabaceae): New insights into a non-target tropical tree species. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2025, 31, 61254–61269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Stewart, C.L.; Robert, E.; Nurse, R.E.; Cowbrough, M.; Peter, H.; Sikkema, P.H. How long can a herbicide remain in the spray tank without losing efficacy? Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 1086–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Soltani, N.; Nurse, R.E.; Sikkema, P.H. Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean to dicamba spray tank contamination during vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 2016, 96, 160–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alves, G.S.; Vieira, B.C.; Ynfante, R.S.; Santana, T.M.; Moraes, J.G.; Golus, J.A.; Kruger, G.R. Tank contamination and simulated drift effects of dicamba-containing formulations on soybean cultivars. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 2020, 3, e20065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cuvaca, I.; Knezevic, S.; Scott, J.; Osipitan, O.A. Growth and yield losses of Roundup Ready soybean as influenced by micro-rates of 2,4-D. Sustain. Agric. Res. 2021, 10, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. MAPA/AGROFIT. Plant Health Agrotsystems–Open Consultation. [Internet]. Available online: http://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  22. Budd, C.M.; Soltani, N.; Robinson, D.E.; Hooker, D.C.; Miller, R.T.; Sikkema, P.H. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) dose response to saflufenacil, saflufenacil plus glyphosate, and metribuzin plus saflufenacil plus glyphosate in soybean. Weed Sci. 2016, 64, 727–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Galon, L.; Konzen, A.; Bagnara, M.A.M.; Brunetto, L.; Aspiazú, I.; Silva, A.M.L.; Brandler, D.; Piazetta, H.V.P.; Radüns, A.L.; Perin, G.F. Interference and threshold level of Sida rhombifolia in transgenic soybean cultivars. Rev. De La Fac. De Cienc. Agrar. UNCuyo 2022, 54, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Soltani, N.; Shropshire, C.; Sikkema, P.H. Sensitivity of leguminous crops to saflufenacil. Weed Technol. 2017, 24, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Streck, E.V.; Kampf, N.; Dalmolin, R.S.D.; Klamt, E.; Nascimento, P.C.; Giasson, E.; Pinto, L.F.S. Soils of Rio Grande do Sul, 3rd ed.; Emater/RS-Ascar, BR: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2018; 252p. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  26. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. INMET—National Institute of Meteorology. Climatological Data. Available online: https://portal.inmet.gov.br (accessed on 29 April 2025). (In Portuguese)
  28. CQFS-RS/SC—Comissão de Química e Fertilidade do Solo. Liming and Fertilization Manual for the States of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, 11th ed.; Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo—Núcleo Regional Sul, BR: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2016; 376p. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  29. Velini, E.D.; Osipe, R.; Gazziero, D.L.P. Procedures for the Establishment, Evaluation, and Analysis of Experiments with Herbicides; SBCPD/BR: Londrina, Brazil, 1995; 42p. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
  30. Barbieri, G.F.; Pigatto, C.S.; Leães, G.P.; Kruse, N.D.; Agostinetto, D.; da Rosa Ulguim, A. Physicochemical properties of soil and rates of saflufenacil in emergence and growth of soybean. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2021, 61, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yin, K.; Wu, H.; Zhang, Y. Efficient and practical synthesis of saflufenacil. Org. Prep. Proced. Int. 2023, 55, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guo, B.F.; Hong, H.L.; Han, J.N.; Zhang, L.J.; Liu, Z.X.; Guo, Y.; Qiu, L.J. Development and identification of glyphosate-tolerant transgenic soybean via direct selection with glyphosate. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1186–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Valença, D.C.; Lelis, D.C.C.; Pinho, C.F.; Bezerra, A.N.M.; Ferreira, M.A.; Junqueira, N.E.G.; Macrae, A.; Medici, L.O.; Reinert, F.; Silva, B.O. Changes in leaf blade morphology and anatomy caused by clomazone and saflufenacil in Setaria viridis, a model C4 plant. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 135, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Salomão, H.M.; Trezzi, M.M.; Viecelli, M.; Pagnocelli Junior, F.D.B.; Patel, F.; Damo, L.; Frizzon, G. Weed management with pre-emergent herbicides in soybean crops. Commun. Plant Sci. 2021, 1, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Green, J.M.; Owen, M.D.K. Herbicide-resistant crops: Utilities and limitations for herbicide-resistant weed management. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 5819–5829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tan, S.; Evans, R.; Singh, B. Herbicidal inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis and herbicide-tolerant crops. J. Amino Acids 2006, 30, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. McCown, S.; Barber, T.; Norsworthy, J.K. Response of non–dicamba-resistant soybean to dicamba as influenced by growth stage and herbicide rate. Weed Technol. 2018, 32, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Carvalho, S.J.P.; Magalhães, T.B.; Ovejero, R.F.L.; Palhano, M.G. Phytotoxicity of low doses of dicamba when sprayed in pre-emergence on non-tolerant soybean. Rev. De Ciências Agroveterinárias 2022, 21, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kaur, H.; Nelson, K.A.; Singh, G.; Udawatta, R.P. Cover crop impacts water quality in a tile-terraced no-till field with corn-soybean rotation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2024, 360, e108794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Miller, R.T.; Soltani, N.; Robinson, D.E.; Kraus, T.E.; Sikkema, P.H. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to saflufenacil. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 92, 1319–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Silva, A.E.; Geist, M.L.; Pereira, J.P.M.; Schedenffeldt, B.F.; Nunes, F.A.; da Silva, P.V.; Dupas, E.; Mauad, M.; Monquero, P.A.; Medeiros, E.S. Selectivity of post-emergence herbicides and foliar fertilizer in soybean crop. Rev. Ciênc Agrovet. 2022, 21, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hungria, M.; Mendes, I.C.; Nakatani, A.S.; Reis Junior, F.B.; Morais, J.Z.; de Oliveira, M.C.N.; Fernandes, M.F. Effects of the glyphosate-resistance gene and herbicides on soybean: Field trials monitoring biological nitrogen fixation and yield. Field Crops Res. 2014, 158, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ribeiro, V.H.V.; Maia, L.S.G.; Arneson, N.J.; Oliveira, M.C.; Read, H.W.; Ané, J.M.; Santos, J.B.; Werle, R. Influence of pre-emergence herbicides on soybean development, root nodulation and symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Crop Prot. 2021, 144, 105576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ganie, Z.A.; Jhala, A.J. Weed control and crop safety in sulfonylurea/glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2020, 100, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dilliott, M.; Soltani, N.; Hooker, D.C.; Robinson, D.E.; Sikkema, P.H. The addition of saflufenacil to glyphosate plus dicamba improves glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane (Erigeron canadensis L.). J. Agric. Sci. 2022, 14, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Conte, F.M.; Cestonaro, L.V.; Piton, Y.V.; Guimarães, N.; Garcia, S.C.; Silva, D.D.; Arbo, M.D. Toxicity of pesticides widely applied on soybean cultivation: Synergistic effects of fipronil, glyphosate and imidacloprid in HepG2 cells. Toxicol. Vitr. 2022, 84, 105446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Rapado, L.P.; Kölpin, F.U.G.; Zeyer, S.; Anders, U.; Piccard, L.; Porri, A.; Asher, S. Complementary activity of trifludimoxazin and saflufenacil when used in combination for postemergence and residual weed control. Weed Sci. 2024, 73, e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mehmood, S.; Ou, W.; Ahmed, W.; Bundschuh, J.; Rizwan, M.; Mahmood, M.; Sultan, H.; Alatalo, J.M.; Elnahal, A.S.M.; Liu, W.; et al. ZnO nanoparticles mediated by Azadirachta indica as nano fertilizer: Improvement in physiological and biochemical indices of Zea mays grown in Cr-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 339, 122755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mehmood, S.; Ahmed, W.; Rizwan, M.; Bundschuh, J.; Elnahal, A.S.M.; Li, W. Green synthesized zinc oxide nanoparticles for removal of carbamazepine in water and soil systems. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2024, 334, 125988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 01758 g001
Figure 1. Precipitation (mm), average temperature (°C), and relative humidity (%) during the experimental period (November 2020–April 2021). UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil. Source: INMET [27].
Figure 1. Precipitation (mm), average temperature (°C), and relative humidity (%) during the experimental period (November 2020–April 2021). UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil. Source: INMET [27].
Agronomy 15 01758 g001
Table 1. Chemical and physical properties of the soil at the experimental area.
Table 1. Chemical and physical properties of the soil at the experimental area.
pH (H2O)OM (%)BS (%)Clay (%)CECt (cmolc dm−3)CECpH=7.0 (cmolc dm−3)H + Al
(cmolc dm−3)
5.63.251.062.010.214.64.5
P
(mg dm−3)		K
(mg dm−3)		Al+3
(cmolc dm−3)		Ca+2
(cmolc dm−3)		Mg+2
(cmolc dm−3)		Sand (%)Silt (%)
9.7134.40.06.73.115.023.0
OM = organic matter; CEC = cation exchange capacity; BS = base saturation.
Table 2. Treatments, herbicide doses, and adjuvants used in the 2020/21 experiment. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
Table 2. Treatments, herbicide doses, and adjuvants used in the 2020/21 experiment. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
TreatmentDose
(g ha−1)		Product Name
Commercial		Dose
(L or kg ha−1)		Adjuvant
(0.5% v/v)
Weed-free control------------
Glyphosate1440Roundup Original® Mais3.000---
Saflufenacil1.09Heat®0.0016Assist
Saflufenacil2.17Heat®0.0031Assist
Saflufenacil4.38Heat®0.00625Assist
Saflufenacil8.75Heat®0.0125Assist
Saflufenacil17.50Heat®0.0250Assist
Saflufenacil35.00Heat®0.0500Assist
Saflufenacil52.50Heat®0.0750Assist
Saflufenacil70.00Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®0.1000Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 1.09Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0160Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 2.17Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0031Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 4.38Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0625Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 8.75Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0125Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 17.50Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0250Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 35.00Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0500Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 52.50Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.0750Assist
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 70.00Roundup Original® Mais + Heat® + Heat®3.00 + 0.1000Assist
Table 3. Phytotoxicity (%) caused by saflufenacil doses applied alone or in combination with glyphosate in soybean cultivar DM 5958 IPRO during the 2020/21 growing season. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
Table 3. Phytotoxicity (%) caused by saflufenacil doses applied alone or in combination with glyphosate in soybean cultivar DM 5958 IPRO during the 2020/21 growing season. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
TreatmentDose
(g ha−1)		Phytotoxicity (%)
7 DAT 114 DAT21 DAT28 DAT35 DAT
Weed-free control---0.00 e 20.00 e0.00 d0.00 d0.00 d
Glyphosate14400.00 e0.00 e0.00 d0.00 d0.00 d
Saflufenacil1.0916.25 d12.50 d7.50 d5.00 d3.75 d
Saflufenacil2.1723.25 d17.00 d10.00 d6.25 d2.50 d
Saflufenacil4.3836.25 c28.75 d22.50 c20.00 c17.50 c
Saflufenacil8.7555.00 b50.00 c46.25 b45.00 b38.75 b
Saflufenacil17.5076.25 a65.00 b58.75 b56.25 b48.75 b
Saflufenacil35.0080.00 a73.75 a67.50 a67.50 a65.00 a
Saflufenacil52.5081.50 a76.25 a75.00 a81.25 a79.50 a
Saflufenacil70.0094.00 a90.00 a87.75 a90.00 a85.00 a
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 1.0945.00 c40.00 c32.50 c28.75 c21.25 c
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 2.1747.50 c43.75 c40.00 b37.00 c32.50 c
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 4.3868.75 b61.25 b51.25 b47.50 b40.00 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 8.7568.75 b61.25 b55.00 b48.75 b43.75 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 17.5070.00 b63.75 b58.75 b57.50 b51.25 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 35.0076.25 a61.25 b56.25 b55.00 b50.00 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 52.5082.50 a77.00 a67.50 a73.75 a71.25 a
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 70.0083.25 a79.50 a75.00 a73.75 a73.25 a
Mean average---55.7450.0645.0844.0740.22
C.V. 3 (%)---21.1321.1124.5727.8030.13
1 Days after treatment application. 2 Means followed by the same letter do not differ by Scott-Knott test (p ≤ 0.05). 3 Coefficient of variation.
Table 4. Physiological variables. Internal CO2 concentration (Ci, µmol mol−1), stomatal conductance (gS, mol m−2 s−1), photosynthetic rate (A, µmol m−2 s−1), transpiration rate (E, mol m−2 s−1), water use efficiency (WUE, mol CO2 mol H2O−1), and carboxylation efficiency (CE, mol CO2 m−2 s−1) of soybean cultivar DM 5958 IPRO under different doses of saflufenacil, applied alone or combined with glyphosate, during the 2020/21 growing season. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
Table 4. Physiological variables. Internal CO2 concentration (Ci, µmol mol−1), stomatal conductance (gS, mol m−2 s−1), photosynthetic rate (A, µmol m−2 s−1), transpiration rate (E, mol m−2 s−1), water use efficiency (WUE, mol CO2 mol H2O−1), and carboxylation efficiency (CE, mol CO2 m−2 s−1) of soybean cultivar DM 5958 IPRO under different doses of saflufenacil, applied alone or combined with glyphosate, during the 2020/21 growing season. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
TreatmentDose
(g ha−1)		Physiological Variables
CigSAEWUECE
Weed-free control---261.75 a 10.40 b21.79 b3.52 a6.36 b0.08 b
Glyphosate1440250.75 b0.38 b22.44 b2.99 a7.05 a0.09 b
Saflufenacil1.09277.25 a0.40 b18.18 c3.18 a5.91 b0.07 c
Saflufenacil2.17273.25 a0.44 a19.84 c3.20 a6.28 b0.07 c
Saflufenacil4.38249.00 b0.40 b23.67 a3.17 a7.58 a0.09 b
Saflufenacil8.75245.25 b0.45 a23.80 a3.08 a7.80 a0.09 b
Saflufenacil17.50248.75 b0.43 a22.36 b2.99 a7.58 a0.09 b
Saflufenacil35.00243.00 b0.43 a22.04 b2.93 a7.67 a0.09 b
Saflufenacil52.50271.75 a0.37 b15.45 d2.93 a5.39 b0.06 c
Saflufenacil70.00268.50 a0.40 b18.38 c2.65 a6.95 a0.07 c
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 1.09265.25 a0.42 b18.63 c3.15 a6.07 b0.07 c
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 2.17222.67 b0.41 b24.48 a3.03 a8.29 a0.11 a
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 4.38262.50 a0.46 a22.68 b3.10 a7.41 a0.09 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 8.75262.25 a0.45 a21.22 b2.95 a7.26 a0.08 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 17.50257.25 b0.44 a23.17 a3.15 a7.47 a0.09 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 35.00262.00 a0.43 a20.61 b3.02 a6.90 a0.07 c
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 52.50249.25 b0.42 a23.41 a2.90 a8.11 a0.09 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 70.00252.50 b0.42 a22.73 b3.02 a7.67 a0.09 b
Mean average---256.880.4221.383.057.100.09
C.V. 2 (%)---5.968.345.898.708.8710.49
1 Means followed by the same letter do not differ by the Scott–Knott test (p ≤ 0.05). 2 Coefficient of variation.
Table 5. Yield components. Number of pods per plant (NPP), number of grains per plant (NGP), thousand-grain weight (TGW, g), and grain yield (GY, kg ha−1) of soybean cultivar DM 5958 IPRO under different doses of saflufenacil, applied alone or combined with glyphosate, during the 2020/21 growing season. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
Table 5. Yield components. Number of pods per plant (NPP), number of grains per plant (NGP), thousand-grain weight (TGW, g), and grain yield (GY, kg ha−1) of soybean cultivar DM 5958 IPRO under different doses of saflufenacil, applied alone or combined with glyphosate, during the 2020/21 growing season. UFFS, Erechim Campus, RS, Brazil.
TreatmentDose
(g ha−1)		Yield Components
NPPNGPTGWGY
Weed-free control---63.25 a 1127.00 a163.93 b3549.22 b
Glyphosate144065.55 a147.35 a168.86 a3977.32 a
Saflufenacil1.0949.20 b124.10 a167.90 a3522.21 b
Saflufenacil2.1754.40 b122.35 a155.36 b3666.61 b
Saflufenacil4.3849.55 b106.55 a158.34 b3271.05 c
Saflufenacil8.7546.53 b95.87 b164.79 b2581.03 d
Saflufenacil17.5060.05 a109.00 a178.10 a2313.32 e
Saflufenacil35.0056.07 a96.70 b172.50 a947.13 g
Saflufenacil52.5053.17 b86.80 b170.17 a376.05 h
Saflufenacil70.0025.73 d55.47 c167.75 a275.19 h
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 1.0949.05 b91.45 b159.87 b3634.61 b
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 2.1750.40 b97.30 b167.90 a3076.72 c
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 4.3839.10 c75.75 c175.16 a2840.30 d
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 8.7536.93 c88.73 b173.32 a2507.97 d
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 17.5053.33 b88.30 b165.87 b2153.19 e
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 35.0054.40 b104.25 a171.47 a1805.88 f
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 52.5058.28 a118.00 a179.33 a1209.59 g
Glyphosate + Saflufenacil1440 + 70.0056.93 a121.65 a175.06 a601.11 h
Mean average---51.21103.15168.652349.99
C.V. 2 (%)---10.7316.123.999.82
1 Means followed by the same letter do not differ by the Scott–Knott test (p ≤ 0.05). 2 Coefficient of variation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Galon, L.; Tedesco, L.; Tonin, R.J.; Anjos, A.D.R.d.; Giacomolli, E.B.; Dassoler, O.A.; Ortiz, F.B.; Perin, G.F. Soybean Response to Saflufenacil Doses, Alone or Combined with Glyphosate, Simulating Tank Contamination. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081758

AMA Style

Galon L, Tedesco L, Tonin RJ, Anjos ADRd, Giacomolli EB, Dassoler OA, Ortiz FB, Perin GF. Soybean Response to Saflufenacil Doses, Alone or Combined with Glyphosate, Simulating Tank Contamination. Agronomy. 2025; 15(8):1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081758

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galon, Leandro, Lucas Tedesco, Rodrigo José Tonin, Aline Diovana Ribeiro dos Anjos, Eduarda Batistelli Giacomolli, Otávio Augusto Dassoler, Felipe Bittencourt Ortiz, and Gismael Francisco Perin. 2025. "Soybean Response to Saflufenacil Doses, Alone or Combined with Glyphosate, Simulating Tank Contamination" Agronomy 15, no. 8: 1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081758

APA Style

Galon, L., Tedesco, L., Tonin, R. J., Anjos, A. D. R. d., Giacomolli, E. B., Dassoler, O. A., Ortiz, F. B., & Perin, G. F. (2025). Soybean Response to Saflufenacil Doses, Alone or Combined with Glyphosate, Simulating Tank Contamination. Agronomy, 15(8), 1758. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081758

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