Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:02:25.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of carrier volume and application method on waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) response to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and diquat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2021

Benjamin P. Sperry Open the ORCID record for Benjamin P. Sperry [Opens in a new window]  and
Jason A. Ferrell
Benjamin P. Sperry*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant Scientist, University of Florida, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Gainesville, FL, USA
Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Professor and Director, University of Florida, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, Gainesville, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Benjamin P. Sperry, University of Florida, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL32653. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mesocosm studies were conducted in 2020 to evaluate the effects of carrier volume and application method on waterhyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms] response to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and diquat. Carrier volumes of 935, 467, and 187 L ha−1 were applied using either a conventional stream, conventional cone, adjustable cone, or a drizzle-stream spray pattern. Reducing carrier volume from 935 L ha−1 reduced spray coverage up to 60%, depending on application method. However, reducing carrier volume did not diminish efficacy of any herbicide or application method. Alternatively, E. crassipes control from 2,4-D increased 10% to 26% when applied using 187 L ha−1 compared with 935 L ha−1. Likewise, E. crassipes biomass was reduced 91% when 2,4-D was applied using 935 L ha−1; however, treatment applied at 187 L ha−1 resulted in 99% biomass reduction. In general, 2,4-D resulted in roughly 10% greater control when conventional or adjustable cone applications were used compared with either stream applications. Eichhornia crassipes control at 7 d after treatment (DAT) from diquat increased with decreasing carrier volumes; however, treatment effects in diquat experiments were not detected at other evaluation intervals. Glyphosate efficacy was highly influenced by carrier volume, as E. crassipes control increased up to 61% when applied using 187 L ha−1 compared with 935 L ha−1. Moreover, E. crassipes biomass reduction increased from 55% in the 935 L ha−1 treatment to 97% in the 187 L ha−1 treatments. Glyphosate application methods consisting of conventional stream or conventional cone sprayers resulted in slightly increased E. crassipes control by 28 DAT; however, no differences among application methods were observed in E. crassipes biomass data. These data support further evaluations of alternative application techniques for E. crassipes control under field conditions and for other herbicides and aquatic plant species.

Keywords

Application technologydroplet sizesolution concentration
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 29 - 34
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Rob J. Richardson, North Carolina State University

References

Ambach, RM, Ashford, R (1982) Effects of variation in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci 30:221–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borggaard, OK, Gimsing, AL (2008) Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: a review. Pest Manag Sci 64:441–456 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Center, TD, Spencer, NR (1981) The phenology and growth of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in a eutrophic north-central Florida lake. Aquat Bot 10:1–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, CF, Henry, RS, Werle, R, Sandell, LD, Hewitt, AJ, Kruger, GR (2015) Performance of postemergence herbicides applied at different carrier volume rates. Weed Technol 29:611–624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M, Duke, SO, Fedtke, C, eds (1992) Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 441 p Google Scholar
Douglas, G (1968) A comparison of the ‘Vibrajet’ nozzle and a fan jet for overall application of bipyridyl herbicides. Weed Res 8:14–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliston, RA, Steward, KK (1972) The response of Eurasian watermilfoil to various concentrations and exposure periods of 2,4-D. Hyacinth Contr J 10:38–40 Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Leary, JK, Prince, CM, Sperry, BP, Lauer, DK (2020) Brazilian peppertree and mangrove species response to foliar-applied novel auxin-type herbicides. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 13:102–107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Netherland, MD, Haller, W, Langeland, K (2018) Efficacy of Herbicide Active Ingredients against Aquatic Weeds. SS-AGR-44. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag262. Accessed: August 11, 2020Google Scholar
Ferguson, JC, Cheschetto, RG, Hewitt, AJ, Chauhan, BS, Adkins, SW, Kruger, GR, O’Donnell, CC (2016) Assessing the deposition and canopy penetration of nozzles with different spray qualities in an oat (Avena sativa L.) canopy. Crop Prot 81:14–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[FFWCC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2019) Annual Report of Pollutant Discharges to the Surface Waters of the State from the Application of Pesticides. NPDES Generic Permit Coverage Number: FLG510039-IWPG. Tallahassee, FL: FFWCC. 52 pGoogle Scholar
Getsinger, KD, Davis, GJ, Brinson, MM (1982) Changes in a Myriophyllum spicatum L. community following 2,4-D treatment. J Aquat Plant Manag 20:4–8 Google Scholar
Green, WR, Westerdahl, HE (1990) Response of Eurasian watermilfoil to 2,4-D concentrations and exposure times. J Aquat Plant Manag 28:27–32 Google Scholar
Haller, WT (2020) Aquatic herbicide application methods. Pages 191–196 in Gettys LA, Haller WT, Petty DG, eds. Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants: A Best Management Practices Handbook. 4th ed. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation, Marietta, GAGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, AJ, Meganasa, T (1993) Droplet distribution densities of a pyrethroid insecticide within grass and maize canopies for the control of Spodoptera exempta larvae. Crop Prot 12:59–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, AH (1967) Spread factors for technical malathion spray. J Econ Entomol 60:280–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstra, DE, Clayton, JS, Getsinger, KD (2001) Evaluation of selected herbicides for the control of exotic submerged weeds in New Zealand: II. The effects of turbidity on diquat and endothall efficacy. J Aquat Plant Manag 39:25–27 Google Scholar
Holm, LG, Plucknett, DL, Pancho, JV, Herberger, JP (1977) The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. 18th ed. University Press Publications, Honolulu, HI. P 609Google Scholar
Joyce, JC (1985) Benefits of maintenance control of waterhyacinth. Aquatics 7(4):11–13 Google Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langeland, KA, Hill, ON, Koschnick, TJ, Haller, WT (2002) Evaluation of a new formulation of Reward Landscape and Aquatic Herbicide for control of duckweed, waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and hydrilla. J Aquat Plant Manag 40:51–53 Google Scholar
Lenth, R (2020) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R Package v. 1.4.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans. Accessed: September 5, 2020Google Scholar
Mendiburu, F (2019) agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. R Package v. 1.3-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=agricolae. Accessed: September 5, 2020Google Scholar
Mudge, CR, Netherland, MD (2014) Response of giant bulrush, water hyacinth, and water lettuce to foliar herbicide applications. J Aquat Plant Manag 52:75–80 Google Scholar
Nelson, LS, Glomski, LM, Gladwin, DN (2007) Effect of glyphosate rate and spray volume on control of giant salvinia. J Aquat Plant Manag 45:58–61 Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, PA, O’Donovan, JT, Hamman, WM (1981) Influence of non-ionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can J Plant Sci 61:391–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, CS, Madsen, JD (1995) Low temperature limits of waterhyacinth. J Aquat Plant Manag 33:63–68 Google Scholar
Penfound, WT, Earle, TT (1948) The biology of the waterhyacinth. Ecol Monogr 18:447–472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieterse, AH (1978) The waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes)—a review. Abst Trop Agric 4:9–12 Google Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, CG (2001) Nozzle, spray volume, and adjuvant effects on carfentrazone and imazamox efficacy. Weed Technol 15:485–491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org. Accessed: September 5, 2020Google Scholar
Riemer, DN (1976) Long-term effects of glyphosate applications to phragmites. J Aquat Plant Manag 14:39–43 Google Scholar
Roten, RL, Connell, RJ, Hewitt, AJ, Woodward, SJR (2015) Comparison of spray dose measured on leaf surfaces with spray coverage estimated from Kromekote® paper. NZ Plant Prot 68:38–43 Google Scholar
Sandberg, CL, Meggit, WF, Penner, D (1978) Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci 26:476–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, CA, Rasband, WS, Eliceiri, KW (2012) NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods 9:671–675 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreiner, SP (1980) Effects of waterhyacinth on the physiochemistry of a south Georgia pond. J Aquat Plant Manag 18:9–12 Google Scholar
Seabrook, EL (1962) The correlation of mosquito breeding to hyacinth plants. Hyacinth Contr J 1:18–19 Google Scholar
Shaw, DR, Morris, WH, Webster, EP, Smith, DB (2000) Effects of spray volume and droplet size on herbicide deposition and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control. Weed Technol 14:321–326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlman, PW, Phillips, WM (1979) Effects of water quality and spray volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci 27:38–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ultsch, GR (1973) The effects of waterhyacinth on the microenvironment of aquatic communities. Arch Hydrobiol 72:460–473 Google Scholar
University of Florida (2011) Plant Management in Florida Waters: 2,4-D Considerations. https://plants-archive.ifas.ufl.edu/manage/developing-management-plans/chemical-control-considerations/24-d-considerations. Accessed: August 11, 2020Google Scholar
Van, TK, Vandiver, VV, Conant, RD (1986) Effect of herbicide rate and carrier volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. J Aquat Plant Manag 24:66–69 Google Scholar
Wersal, RM, Madsen, JD (2010) Combinations of penoxsulam and diquat as foliar applications for control of waterhyacinth and common salvinia: evidence of herbicide antagonism. J Aquat Plant Manag 48:21–25 Google Scholar
Wolf, TM, Caldwell, BC, Mcintyre, GI, Hsiao, AI (1992) Effect of droplet size and herbicide concentration on absorption and translocation of 14C-2,4-D in Oriental mustard (Sisymbrium orientale). Weed Sci 40:568–575 Google Scholar
Zaranyika, MF, Nyandoro, MG (1993) Degradation of glyphosate in the aquatic environment: an enzymatic kinetic model that takes into account microbial degradation of both free and colloidal (or sediment) particle adsorbed glyphosate. J Agric Food Chem 41:838–842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar