Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:40:00.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Meta-Analysis on the Effects of 2,4-D and Dicamba Drift on Soybean and Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Franklin Egan ,
Kathryn M. Barlow  and
David A. Mortensen
J. Franklin Egan*
Affiliation:
Pasture Systems Watershed Management Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Building 3702, Curtain Road, University Park, PA 16802
Kathryn M. Barlow
Affiliation:
Research Technician and Professor, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 116 ASI Building, University Park, PA 16802
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Research Technician and Professor, Department of Plant Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 116 ASI Building, University Park, PA 16802
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commercial introduction of cultivars of soybean and cotton genetically modified with resistance to the synthetic auxin herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D will allow these compounds to be used with greater flexibility but may expose susceptible soybean and cotton cultivars to nontarget herbicide drift. From past experience, it is well known that soybean and cotton are both highly sensitive to low-dose exposures of dicamba and 2,4-D. In this study, a meta-analysis approach was used to synthesize data from over seven decades of simulated drift experiments in which investigators treated soybean and cotton with low doses of dicamba and 2,4-D and measured the resulting yields. These data were used to produce global dose–response curves for each crop and herbicide, with crop yield plotted against herbicide dose. The meta-analysis showed that soybean is more susceptible to dicamba in the flowering stage and relatively tolerant to 2,4-D at all growth stages. Conversely, cotton is tolerant to dicamba but extremely sensitive to 2,4-D, especially in the vegetative and preflowering squaring stages. Both crops are highly variable in their responses to synthetic auxin herbicide exposure, with soil moisture and air temperature at the time of exposure identified as key factors. Visual injury symptoms, especially during vegetative stages, are not predictive of final yield loss. Global dose–response curves generated by this meta-analysis can inform guidelines for herbicide applications and provide producers and agricultural professionals with a benchmark of the mean and range of crop yield loss that can be expected from drift or other nontarget exposures to 2,4-D or dicamba.

Keywords

2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy benzoic acid)glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrcotton, Gossypium hirsutum LDose–response curvesGlycine maxGossypium hirsutumherbicide driftherbicide-resistant cropsmeta-analysis
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 193 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

[AAPCO] Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (2005) Pesticide Drift Enforcement Survey Report. Milford, DE: AAPCO. http://aapco.ceris.purdue.edu/doc/surveys/DriftEnforce05Rpt.htm. Accessed November 26, 2012.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 Google Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J. 96:750–760 Google Scholar
Arle, HF (1954) The sensitivity of Acala 44 cotton to 2,4-D. Pages 20–25 in Proceedings of the 14th Western Weed Control Conference. Tuscon, AZ Western Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE, (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci. 26:471–475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnardi, V, Zambon, A, Quatto, P, Corrao, G (2004) Flexible meta-regression functions for modeling aggregate dose-response data, with an application to alcohol and mortality. Am J Epidemiol 159:1077–1086 Google Scholar
Banks, PA, Schroeder, J (2002) Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol 16:833–837 Google Scholar
Barker, GL, Hatfield, JL, Wanjura, DF (1985) Cotton phenology parameters as affected by wind. Field Crops Res 12:33–47 Google Scholar
Bednarz, CW, Nichols, RL (2005) Phenological and morphological components of cotton crop maturity. Crop Sci. 45:1497–1503 Google Scholar
Behrens, R, Hall, WC, Fisher, CE (1955) Field responses of cotton to four phenoxy-type herbicides. Pages 72–75 in Proceedings of the 8th Southern Weed Control Conference. St. Petersburg, FL Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
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 316:1185–1188 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behrens, R, Lueschen, WE (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci. 27:486–493 Google Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime, and Pest Management conference, Madison, WI. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Brown, RB, Carter, MH, Stephenson, GR (2004) Buffer zone and windbreak effects on spray drift deposition in a simulated wetland. Pest Manag Sci. 60:1085–1090 Google Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson, DM (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. New York Springer-Verlag. 488 pGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, SCK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778–786 Google Scholar
Carns, H, Goodman, VH (1956) Responses of cotton to 2,4-D Bulletin of the Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station. 15 pGoogle Scholar
Cedergreen, N, Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Improved empirical models describing hormesis. Environ Toxicol Chem. 24:3166–3172 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (2012) CAB Direct Database. http://www.cabdirect.org. Accessed August–November 2011.Google Scholar
Charles, GW, Constable, GA, Llewellyn, DJ, Hickman, MA (2007) Tolerance of cotton expressing a 2,4-D detoxification gene to 2,4-D applied in the field. Aust. J. Agric. Res 58:780–787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantin, J, de Oliveira, RS Júnior, Fagliari, JR, Pagliari, PH, de Arantes, JGZ, Cavalieri, SD, Framesqui, VP, Gonçalves, DA (2007) Effect of sub-lethal dosages of 2,4-D on cotton yield and crop susceptibility as a function of its development stage. Engenharia Agrícola 27:24–29 Google Scholar
Cooper, H, Hedges, LV, Valentine, JC (2009) The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 2nd ed. New York Russel Sage Foundation. 615 pGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2005) Statistics: An Introduction Using R. West Sussex, UK John Wiley and Sons. Pages 33–50 Google Scholar
de Jong, FMW, de Snoo, GR, van de Zande, JC (2008) Estimated nationwide effects of pesticide spray drift on terrestrial habitats in the Netherlands. J Environ Manage 86:721–730 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dow AgroSciences (2011a) Research Demonstrating Reduction in Potential Off-Target Movement for 2,4-D Choline and Colex-D™ Technology as Part of the Enlist™ Weed Control System. Krieger, M, editor. Supplemental Information for Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Herbicide Tolerant DAS-68416-4 Soybean. Pages 13 pGoogle Scholar
Dow AgroSciences (2011b) Stewardship of Herbicide Tolerant Trait Technology for DAS-68416-4 Soybean. Krieger, M, editor. Supplemental Information for Petition for Determination of Non-regulated Status for Herbicide Tolerant DAS-68416-4 Soybean. Pages 12 pGoogle Scholar
Egan, JF, Mortensen, DA (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem. 31:1023–1031 Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587–592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epps, EA (1953) Growth regulators. Effect of 2,4-D on growth and yield of cotton. J Agric Food Chem. 1:1009–1010 Google Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J, Weiseberg, S (2010) An R Companion to Applied Regression. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications. 249 pGoogle Scholar
Goodman, VH (1953) The yield and progeny seedling responses of cotton to treatment with 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and MCPA. Pages 47–56 in Proceedings of the 6th Southern Weed Control Conference. Knoxville, TN Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Goodman, VH, Ennis, WB, Palmer, RD (1955) Cotton responses to 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, MCPA and related growth regulators. Pages 76–81 in Proceedings of the 8th Southern Weed Control Conference. St. Petersburg, FL Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Grover, R, Yoshida, K, Maybank, J (1972) Droplet and vapor drift from butyl ester and dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 20:320–324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, KC, Arle, HF (1979) Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to dicamba. Weed Sci. 27:604–607 Google Scholar
Hedges, LV, Gurevitch, J, Curtis, PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology. 80:1150–1156 Google Scholar
Hill, BD, Harker, KN, Hasselback, P, Moyer, JR, Inaba, DJ, Byers, SD (2002) Phenoxy herbicides in Alberta rainfall: Potential effects on sensitive crops. Can J Plant Sci. 82:481–484 Google Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC, (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 Google Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 53:101–112 Google Scholar
Kittock, DL, Arle, HF (1977) Termination of late season cotton fruiting with plant growth regulators. Crop Sci. 17:320–324 Google Scholar
Kittock, DL, Mauney, JR, Arle, HF, Bariola, LA (1973) Termination of late season cotton fruiting with growth regulators as an insect-control technique. J Environ Qual 2:405–408 Google Scholar
Kuehl, RO (2000) Design of experiments: statistical principles of research design and analysis. 2nd edition. Pacific Grove, CA Brooks and Cole. 666 pGoogle Scholar
Lanini, WT (2000) Simulated drift of herbicides on grapes, tomatoes, cotton, and sunflower. Pages 107–110 in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the California Weed Science Society. Fremont, CA California Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. 2,4-D Herbicide Regulations. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Pesticide Rules and Regulations, Section 143. 24 pGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 22:609–614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992 Google Scholar
Merotto, A Jr., Vidal, RA, Fleck, NG (1999) Soybean tolerance to synthetic auxin and potential of mixtures with protox-inhibiting herbicides. Pages 319–324 in Brighton Crop Protection Conference: Weeds. Brighton, UK British Crop Protection Council Google Scholar
Miller, JH, Kempen, HM, Wilkerson, JA, Foy, CL (1963) Response of cotton to 2,4-D and related phenoxy herbicides. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1289. 28 pGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TJ, Weller, SC, Ashton, FM (2002) Weed Science: Principles and Practices. New York John Wiley and Sons. Pp 291–310 Google Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:75–85 Google Scholar
Oosterhuis, DM, Jernstedt, J (1999) Morphology and anatomy of the cotton plant. Pages 175–206 in Smith, CW Cothren, JT, eds. Cotton: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. New York Wiley and Sons Google Scholar
Paul, PA, Lipps, PE, Madden, LV (2006) Meta-analysis of regression coefficients for the relationship between fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol content of wheat. Phytopathology 96:951–961 Google Scholar
Pedersen, P (2004) Soybean Growth and Development. Ames, IA Iowa State University Extension. 28 pGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ISBN: 3-900051-07-0. Available online at http://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rinella, MJ, Sheley, RL (2005) A model for predicting invasive weed and grass dynamics. II. Accuracy evaluation. Weed Sci. 53:605–614 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Softw 12:1–22 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2008) Nonlinear Regression with R. New York Springer Science and Business Media. 148 pGoogle Scholar
Robinson, AP, Davis, VM, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013) Response of soybean yield components to 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 61:68–76 Google Scholar
Roider, CA, Griffin, JL, Harrison, SA, Jones, CA (2008) Carrier volume affects wheat response to simulated glyphosate drift. Weed Technol 22:453–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutte, BJ, Hager, AG, Davis, AS (2010) Respray requests on custom-applied, glyphosate-resistant soybeans in Illinois: how many and why. Weed Technol 24:590–598 Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Smith, DT, Wiese, AF (1972) Cotton Response to Low Rates of 2,4-D and Other Herbicides Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. B-1120. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Smith, RJ (1965) Effects of chlorophenoxy herbicides on soybeans. Weeds 13:168–169 Google Scholar
Staten, G (1946) Contamination of cotton fields by 2,4-D or hormone-type weed sprays. Agron J. 38:536–544 Google Scholar
Texas Department of Agriculture (2012) Regulated Herbicides and Regulated Herbicide Counties. http://www.texasagriculture.gov/RegulatoryPrograms/Pesticides/ RegulatedHerbicides/RegulatedHerbicidesCounties.aspx. Accessed November 20, 2012Google Scholar
Thomas, WE, Staal, M, Bowe, S, Bozeman, L (2012) Engenia herbicide: maximizing on-target spray deposition. Page 83 in ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Meetings. Cincinnati, OH ASA, CSSA, SSSA Google Scholar
Thompson, SG, Higgins, JPT (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 21:1559–1573 Google Scholar
Tuduri, L, Harner, T, Blanchard, P, Li, YF, Poissant, L, Waite, DT, Murphy, C, Belzer, W (2006) A review of currently used pesticides (CUPS) in Canadian air and precipitation. Part 2: Regional information and perspectives. Atmos Environ. 40:1579–1589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dicamba and Associated Salts. Washington, DC US EPA. 165 pGoogle Scholar
Wagner, NC, Maxwell, BD, Taper, ML, Rew, LJ (2007) Developing an empirical yield-prediction model based on wheat and wild oat (Avena fatua) density, nitrogen and herbicide rate, and growing-season precipitation. Weed Sci. 55:652–664 Google Scholar
Waltz, E (2010) Glyphosate resistance threatens Roundup hegemony. Nat Biotechnol 28:537–538 Google Scholar
Wang, M, Rautman, D (2008) A simple probabilistic estimation of spray drift -factors determining spray drift and development of a model. Environ Toxicol Chem. 27:2617–2626 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, AJ (1955) The response of cotton to low rates of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, MCP and Silvex. Pages 82–86 in Proceedings of the 8th Southern Weed Control Conference. St. Petersburg, FL Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba and picloram. Weed Sci. 17:388–393 Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J. 81:637–643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, AF, Martin, AG (1963) Toxicity of benzoic acid herbicide to cotton and soybeans. Weeds 11:7–10 Google Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, GM, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, MB, Arnold, NL, Lin, GF, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, ZY (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20240–20245 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zar, JH (2009) Biostatistical Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Pearson. 960 pGoogle Scholar