Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:01:36.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Salt and Temperature Effects on Sethoxydim Spray Deposit and Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert Matysiak
Affiliation:
North Dakota State University, Loftsgard Hall, Fargo. ND 58105-5051
John D. Nalewaja*
Affiliation:
North Dakota State University, Loftsgard Hall, Fargo. ND 58105-5051
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Certain salts in the spray carrier can antagonize sethoxydim, while other salts overcome the antagonism or increase the herbicide's efficacy. Sethoxydim responses to salts have not been consistent, and the inconsistency is not completely understood. Experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to determine sethoxydim phytotoxicity to oat as influenced by salts in the spray carrier and by air temperature at and immediately after application as they alter the spray deposit characteristics. Thick amorphous spray deposits were related to ineffective sethoxydim-petroleum oil adjuvant treatments applied alone at 10 C or with bentazon at 10 or 25 C. Also, thin deposits with salt residues were related to ineffective sethoxydim treatments, as when sodium bicarbonate was present. Ammonium sulfate reduced or overcame antagonism of sethoxydim phytotoxicity caused by low temperature, bentazon, and sodium bicarbonate and gave thin deposits having close contact with the leaf epicuticular surface but without obvious salt deposits. UV light antagonism of sethoxydim phytotoxicity was different depending on temperature at and shortly after application and depending on salts in the spray mixture. The results indicate that salts in a bentazon spray carrier are in part antagonistic because of their effect on final spray deposit.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:574583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Jourdan, S. W., Wyse, D. L., Somers, D. A., and Magnusson, M. V. 1993. Effect of ammonium sulfate on absorption of imazethapyr by quackgrass and maize cell suspension. Weed Sci. 41:325334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K. and Wax, L. M. 1986. The effect of adjuvant and oil carrier on photodecomposition of 2,4-D, bentazon, and haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 34:8189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, J. L. and Krebs, P. J. 1992. Photodegradation and absorption of sethoxydim as adjuvant-influenced surface effects. In Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 195203.Google Scholar
Holshauser, D. L. and Coble, H. D. 1990. Compatibility of sethoxydim with five postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:128133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Streibig, J. 1993. Formulations and adjuvants. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 99116.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Szelezniak, E. F., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Phytotoxicity of bentazon with oils, surfactants, and fertilizer salts. In Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 474482.Google Scholar
Matysiak, R. 1995. Role of adjuvants in product retention and form of deposit on targets. In Gaskins, R. E., ed. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotorua, NZ: New Zealand Forest Research Institute Bull. 193. pp. 112119.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Manthey, F. A., Szelezniak, E. F., and Anyska, Z. 1989. Sodium bicarbonate antagonism of sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 3:654658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1995. Ethoxylated linear alcohol surfactants affect glyphosate and fluazifop absorption and efficacy. In Gaskin, R. E., ed. Adjuvant for Agrochemicals. Rotorua. NZ: New Zealand Forest Research Institute Bull. 193. pp. 291296.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Szelezniak, E. 1994. Sethoxydim response spray carrier chemical properties and environment. Weed Technol. 8:591597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, D. and Holloway, P. J. 1993. Possible mechanisms for surfactant-induced foliar uptake of agrochemicals. Pestic. Sci. 38:165177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, F. S., Wein, R. G., and Mansager, E. R. 1981. Effect of nonionic surfactants on the photo-chemistry of 3-(4-chlorophenol)-1,1-dimethylurea in aqueous solution. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:774779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. Characterizing the sethoxydim–bentazon interaction with proton nuclear magnets resonance spectrometry. Weed Sci. 43:337341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanamarta, G., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1993. Overcoming antagonistic effects of Na-bentazon on sethoxydim absorption. Weed Technol. 7:322325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanamarta, G., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1989. The basis of bentazon antagonism on sethoxydim absorption and activity. Weed Sci. 37:400404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar