Dicamba-Tolerant Soybean Response to 2,4-D Micro-Rates at Three Growth Stages

Dicamba-Tolerant Soybean Response to 2,4-D Micro-Rates at Three Growth Stages


  • Stevan knezevic Univ of Nebraska




Dicamba-tolerant soybean, 2,4-D micro-rates, growth stage


While dicamba and 2,4-D belong to the same herbicide group, dicamba- and 2,4-D-tolerant soybeans are not cross-resistant. A study was conducted to investigate dicamba-tolerant (DT) soybean response to 2,4-D micro-rates at three growth stages. The study used a randomized complete block design with six replications and a split-plot treatment arrangement. Main plots consisted of three 2,4-D application times [second trifoliate (V2); beginning of flowering (R1); and full flowering (R2)] and subplots consisted of six 2,4-D micro-rates (1/5; 1/10; 1/50; 1/100; 1/500; and 1/1,000 of the label recommended dose of 1,120 g ae ha-1) and a check with no herbicide applied. DT soybean injury symptoms were assessed at 7, 14 and 21 days after treatment (DAT). Yield components, grain yield and yield loss were estimated. The greatest soybean injury (59%) at 21 DAT, delay in canopy closure (16.8 d), and reduction in number of branches plant-1 (52%), pods plant-1 (38%) and 100 seed weight (16%) which ultimately resulted in yield loss (78%) was caused by 1/5 of the label recommended dose of 2,4-D (214 g ae ha-1) at R1 growth stage. Based on effective dose (ED) estimates, 8.66 g ae ha-1 2,4-D caused 0.22 Mg ha-1 (5%) yield loss in DT soybean at R1 but a 1.34- and 2.11-fold higher dose of the same herbicide was required to cause equal yield loss at R2 and V2 growth stages, respectively. Similarly, the number of branches plant-1, pods plant-1 and flowers plant-1 were more sensitive to 2,4-D at R1 than V2 and R2 growth stages with the latter being the most sensitive yield component. On the other hand, 100 seed weight was 3.1- and 4.5-fold more sensitive to 2,4-D at R2 than R1 and V2 growth stages, respectively. Overall, these results showed that DT soybean is most sensitivity to 2,4-D at R1.


Al-Khatib K, Peterson D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technology, 264-270

Behrens MR, Mutlu N, Chakraborty S, Dumitru R, Jiang WZ, LaVallee BJ, Herman PL, Clemente TE, Weeks DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science, 316(5828), 1185-1188.

Costa EM, Jakelaitis A, Zuchi J, Pereira LS, Ventura MVA, de Oliveira GS, Silva JN (2020) Simulated drift of dicamba and 2, 4-D on soybeans: effects of application dose and time. Bioscience Journal, 36(3)

Dekker JH, Duke SO (1995) Herbicide-resistant field crops. Advances in Agronomy, 54, 69

Duke SO (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years?. Pest management science, 68(4), 505-512

Egan JF, Barlow KM, Mortensen DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2, 4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Science, 62(1), 193-206

Grossmann K (2010) Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Management Science: formerly Pesticide Science, 66(2), 113-120

Inderjit (2009) Management of Invasive Weeds. Dordrecht; London: Springer. Invading Nature; v. 5. Web

Knezevic SZ, Streibig JC, Ritz C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: The concept and data analysis. Weed Technology, 21:840-848. Doi: 10.1614/WT-06- 161.1

Leon RG, Ferrell JA, Brecke BJ (2014) Impact of exposure to 2, 4-D and dicamba on peanut injury and yield. Weed Technology, 28(3), 465-470

Mazur BJ, Falco SC (1989) The development of herbicide resistant crops. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 40(1), 441-470

Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science, 144: 31-43

Osipitan OA, Scott JE, Knezevic SZ (2019) Glyphosate-resistant soybean response to micro-rates of three dicamba-based herbicides. Agrosystems, Geosciences & the Environment, 2(1)

Owen MD, Zelaya IA (2005) Herbicide‐resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Management Science: formerly Pesticide Science, 61(3), 301-311

Peterson MA, McMaster SA, Riechers DE, Skelton J, Stahlman PW (2016) 2, 4-D past, present, and future: a review. Weed Technology, 30(2), 303-345

Robinson AP, Davis VM, Simpson DM, Johnson WG (2013) Response of soybean yield components to 2, 4-D. Weed science, 61(1), 68-76

Slife FW (1956) The effect of 2,4-D and several other herbicides on weeds and soybeans when applied as post-emergence sprays. Weeds 4:61–68

Solomon CB, Bradley KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technology, 28(3), 454-464

USDA (2020) Crop Production Monthly Report. United States Department of Agriculture. Economics, Statistics, and Market Information System. April 9, 2020. https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/tm70mv177. Accessed: April 15, 2020.

Wax LM, Knuth LA, Slife FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393

Wright TR, Shan G, Walsh TA, Lira,JM, Cui C, Song P, Zhuang M, Arnold N, Lin G, Yau K, Russell SM, Cicchillo RM, Peterson MA, Simpson DM, Zhou N, Ponsamuel J, Zhang Z (2010). Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(47), 20240-20245.




How to Cite

knezevic, S. (2021). Dicamba-Tolerant Soybean Response to 2,4-D Micro-Rates at Three Growth Stages: Dicamba-Tolerant Soybean Response to 2,4-D Micro-Rates at Three Growth Stages. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(3), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.14738/aivp.93.10433