Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:16:09.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Droplet size impact on lactofen and acifluorfen efficacy for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 December 2019

Lucas X. Franca Open the ORCID record for Lucas X. Franca [Opens in a new window] ,
Darrin M. Dodds Open the ORCID record for Darrin M. Dodds [Opens in a new window] ,
Thomas R. Butts Open the ORCID record for Thomas R. Butts [Opens in a new window] ,
Greg R. Kruger ,
Daniel B. Reynolds ,
J. Anthony Mills ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Angus L. Catchot  and
Daniel G. Peterson
Lucas X. Franca
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Darrin M. Dodds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Thomas R. Butts
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, North Platte, NE, USA
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, North Platte, NE, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
J. Anthony Mills
Affiliation:
Weed Management Technology Development Representative, Bayer CropScience, Collierville, TN, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Angus L. Catchot
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University, Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel G. Peterson
Affiliation:
Director and Professor, Mississippi State University, Institute for Genomics, Biocomputing and Biotechnology, and Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Darrin M. Dodds, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, 32 Creelman Street, Office 114, Dorman Hall, Mississippi State, MS39762. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide applications performed with pulse width modulation (PWM) sprayers to deliver specific spray droplet sizes could maintain product efficacy, minimize potential off-target movement, and increase flexibility in field operations. Given the continuous expansion of herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth populations across the southern and midwestern United States, efficacious and cost-effective means of application are needed to maximize Palmer amaranth control. Experiments were conducted in two locations in Mississippi (2016, 2017, and 2018) and one location in Nebraska (2016 and 2017) for a total of 7 site-years. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of a range of spray droplet sizes [150 (Fine) to 900 μm (Ultra Coarse)] on lactofen and acifluorfen efficacy for Palmer amaranth control. The results of this research indicated that spray droplet size did not influence lactofen efficacy on Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth control and percent dry-biomass reduction remained consistent with lactofen applied within the aforementioned droplet size range. Therefore, larger spray droplets should be used as part of a drift mitigation approach. In contrast, acifluorfen application with 300-μm (Medium) spray droplets provided the greatest Palmer amaranth control. Although percent biomass reduction was numerically greater with 300-μm (Medium) droplets, results did not differ with respect to spray droplet size, possibly as a result of initial plant injury, causing weight loss, followed by regrowth. Overall, 900-μm (Ultra Coarse) droplets could be used effectively without compromising lactofen efficacy on Palmer amaranth, and 300-μm (Medium) droplets should be used to achieve maximum Palmer amaranth control with acifluorfen.

Keywords

AcifluorfenlactofenPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAPPO-inhibiting herbicidespulse width modulation (PWM)diphenyl ether herbicidesapplication optimizationweed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 416 - 423
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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: William Johnson, Purdue University

References

Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JP, de Santana, DG, Pinto, LA, Guimarães, F, Zaric, M (2017) Dicamba spray drift as influenced by wind speed and nozzle type. Weed Technol 31:724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglund, EA, Ayers, PD (2003) Field evaluation of response times for a variable rate (pressure-based and injection) liquid chemical applicator. Appl Eng Agric 19:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASABE (2009) Spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra, ANSI/ASAE S572.2. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Pp 1–3Google Scholar
Berger, ST, Dobrow, MH, Ferrell, JA, Webster, TM (2014) Influence of carrier volume and nozzle selection on Palmer amaranth control. Peanut Sci 41:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, SL, Esterly, DM, Perry, SG (1996) Atmospheric pollutants and trace gases. Off-target deposition of pesticides from agricultural aerial spray applications. J Environ Qual 25:1095–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Reynolds, DB, Irby, T (2016) Managing PPO-resistant Palmer amaranth in Mississippi soybean. Mississippi State University Extension. http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2016/03/25/managing-ppo-resistant-palmer-amaranth-in-mississippi-soybean/. Accessed: January 14, 2019Google Scholar
Bouse, LF (1994) Effect of nozzle type and operation on spray droplet size. T ASABE 37:1389–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, L, Soltani, N, Shrosphire, C, Spieser, H, Sikkema, PH (2007) Efficacy of four corn (Zea mays L.) herbicides when applied with flat fan and air induction nozzles. Weed Biol Manag 7:55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, EC, Smith, DB (1974) Effects of droplet sizes on deposition of ULV spray. J Econ Entomol 67:751–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler Ellis, MC, Tuck, CR, Miller, PCH (1997) The effect of some adjuvants on sprays produced by agricultural flat fan nozzles Crop Prot 16:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, CW, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2019a) Droplet size impact on efficacy of a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture. Weed Technol 33:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2019b) Optimum droplet size using a pulse-width modulation sprayer for applications of 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate. Agron J 111:1425–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, CW, Kruger, GR (2018) Spray droplet size and carrier volume effect on dicamba and glufosinate efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 74:2020–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byass, JB, Lake, JR (1977) Spray drift from a tractor-powered field sprayer. Pestic Sci 8:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, SCK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778–786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Aulakh, JS, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2015) Herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) in the United States––mechanisms of resistance, impact, and management. Chapter in Price, A, Kelton, J, Sarunaite, L, eds., Herbicides, Agronomic Crops, and Weed Biology. InTechOpen. doi: 10.5772/61512Google Scholar
Combellack, JH (1982) Loss of herbicides from ground sprayers. Weed Res 22:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, CF, Henry, RS, Fritz, BK, Kruger, GR (2015) Influence of herbicide active ingredient, nozzle type, orifice size, spray pressure, and carrier volume rate on spray droplet size characteristics. Weed Technol 29:298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, CF, Moraes, JG, Henry, RS, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2016) The impact of spray droplet size on the efficacy of 2,4-D, atrazine, chlorimuron-methyl, dicamba, glufosinate, and saflufenacil. Weed Technol 30:573–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, N, Massinon, M, Salah, SO, Lebeau, F (2017) Investigation on optimal spray properties for ground based agricultural applications using deposition and retention models. Biosyst Eng 162:99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Oliveira, RB, Precipito, LMB, Gandolfo, MA, de Oliveira, JV, Lucio, FR (2019) Effect of droplet size and leaf surface on retention of 2,4-D formulations. Crop Prot 119:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennis, WB, Williamson, RE (1963) Influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low-volume herbicidal sprays. Weeds-U 11:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Hart, WE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, TC (2001) Effect of Venturi-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 15:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, HC, Sperry, BP, Reynolds, DB, Kruger, GR, Claussen, S (2018) Reducing herbicide particle drift: effect of hooded sprayer and spray quality. Weed Technol 32:714–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38in Camper, ND, ed., Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Frost, KR, Ware, GW (1970) Pesticide drift from aerial and ground applications. J Agric Eng 51:460–464Google Scholar
Giles, DK, Henderson, GW, Funk, K (1996) Digital control of flow rate and spray droplet size from agricultural nozzles for precision chemical application. Precis Agric 729–738Google Scholar
Gizotti de Moraes, J (2018) Evaluation of Glyphosate and PPO-Inhibiting Herbicide Tank-Mixtures to Manage Glyphosate Resistance in Soybean. Master’s thesis. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska. 82 pGoogle Scholar
GopalaPillai, S, Tian, L, Zheng, J (1999) Evaluation of a flow control system for site-specific herbicide applications. T ASABE 42:863–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, WJ (2007) Horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum), smellmelon (Cucumis melo), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in peanut with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 21:688–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, WJ (2008) Herbicide systems for control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.), smellmelon (Cucumis melo L.), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) in peanut. Peanut Sci 35:38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, R, Kerr, LA, Maybank, J, Yoshidja, K (1978) Field measurement of droplet drift from ground sprayers, I: sampling, analytical and data integration techniques. Can J Plant Sci 58:611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, JR, Gossett, BJ, Murphy, TR, Toler, JE (1991) Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J Prod Agric 4:407–NPCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havens, PL, Hilger, DE, Hewitt, AJ, Kruger, GR, Marchi-Werle, L, Czaczyk, Z (2018) Field measurements of drift of conventional and drift control formulations of 2,4-D plus glyphosate. Weed Technol 32:550–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, IM (2019) The International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 18, 2019Google Scholar
Henry, RS, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Kruger, GR (2016) The Influence of nozzle type, operating pressure, and tank-mixture components on droplet characteristics and the EPA’s drift reduction rating. Pages 149–161in Poffenberger, C, Heuser, J, eds. Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems. Vol 36: Emerging Trends Building on a Solid Foundation. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM InternationalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, NR, Oosterhuis, DM (2017) Temperature and drought impacts on rice production: an agronomic perspective regarding short-and long-term adaptation measures. Water Resources Rural Dev 9:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, JR (1977) The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic Sci 8:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, JD, Sharda, A, Pitla, SK, Fulton, JP, Shearer, SA (2011) A case study concerning the effects of controller response and turning movements on application rate uniformity with a self-propelled sprayer. T ASABE 54:423–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Ashford, R, Ford, RJ (1974) Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci 22:31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Brandt, SA, Morse, P, Ashford, R (1972) Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci 20:450–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Barber, T (2015) Influence of droplet size on efficacy of the formulated products Engenia™, Roundup PowerMax®, and Liberty®. Weed Technol 29:641–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, PCH, Ellis, MB (2000) Effects of formulation on spray nozzle performance for applications from ground-based boom sprayers. Crop Prot 19:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Burgos, NR, Oliver, LR (2001) Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol 15:725–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyttens, D, Baetens, K, De Schampheleire, M, Sonck, B (2007) Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics. Biosyst Eng 97:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D (2005) Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environ Dev Sustain 7:229–252Google Scholar
Prasad, R (1987) A study of droplet size and density in relation to efficacy of herbicides. Weed Sci Soc Am Abstr 27:98Google Scholar
Reichenberger, S, Bach, M, Skitschak, A, Frede, HG (2007) Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into ground and surface water and their effectiveness; a review. Sci Total Environ 384:1–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, RA, Burgos, NR, Tranel, P, Singh, S, Glasglow, L, Scott, RC, Nichols, RI (2016) Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide in Palmer amaranth from Arkansas. Pest Manag Sci 72:864–869CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 14:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, BP, Ferrell, JA, Smith, HC, Fernandez, VJ, Leon, RG, Smith, CA (2017) Effect of sequential applications of protoporphyrinogen oxidase–inhibiting herbicides on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control and peanut response. Weed Technol 31:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, GW, Whitacre, DM (2004) The Pesticide Book. 6th edn. Willoughby, OH: Meister Media Worldwide. Pp 3–13Google Scholar
Wolf, TM (2002) Optimizing herbicide performance—biological consequences of using low-drift nozzles. Asp Appl Biol 66:79–86Google Scholar
Zabkiewicz, JA (2007) Spray formulation efficacy—holistic and futuristic perspectives. Crop Prot 26:312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar