Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:02:00.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Organosilicone Surfactants on the Rainfastness of Primisulfuron in Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jinxia Sun ,
Chester L. Foy  and
Harold L. Witt
Jinxia Sun
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Physiol. and Weed Sci., Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Chester L. Foy
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Physiol. and Weed Sci., Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Harold L. Witt
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Physiol. and Weed Sci., Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the influence of three organosilicone surfactants (Silwet L-77®, Silwet® 408, and Sylgard® 309) and two blends of organosilicone surfactants with conventional adjuvants (Dyne-Amic® and Kinetic®) on the rainfastness of primisulfuron in velvetleaf. Four conventional adjuvants, Rigo Oil Concentrate, Agri-Dex®, methylated soybean oil, and X-77® were selected for comparison. Primisulfuron at 40 g ai/ha was applied alone or with the organosilicones, blends, or X-77 at 0.25% (v/v); the other adjuvants were tested at 1% (v/v). Simulated rainfall (1.25 cm/0.5 h) was applied at 0.25, 0.5, 1, or 2 h after treatment. Control ratings were made at 5-d intervals and shoot fresh weights were recorded 20 DAT. The organosilicone surfactants significantly increased the rainfastness of primisulfuron, even when simulated rainfall was applied at 0.25 or 0.5 h after treatment. Rigo Oil Concentrate and Kinetic also increased rainfastness when rainfall was applied 1 h after treatment. Differences among adjuvants were not as apparent when rainfall was applied 2 h after treatment. Regardless of the timing of simulated rainfall after treatment, there were significant differences between treatments and nontreated check; however, control was not acceptable in several instances.

Keywords

Primisulfuron, 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]amino]carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHConventional adjuvantssimulated rainfallABUTH
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 263 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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

1. Ananthapadmanabhan, K. P., Goddard, E. D., and Chandar, P. A. 1990. Study of the solution, interfacial and wetting properties of silicone surfactants. Colloids and Surfaces 44:281–297.Google Scholar
2. Buick, R. D., Field, R. J., Robson, A. B., and Buchan, G. D. 1992. A foliar uptake model for triclopyr. p. 87–99 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
3. Chevone, B. I., Yang, Y. S., Winner, W. E., Storks-Cotter, I., and Long, S. J. 1984. A rainfall simulator for laboratory use in acidic precipitation studies. J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 31:355–359.Google Scholar
4. Ciba Crop Protection. 1995. Beacon® Herbicide. p. 45–51 in Ciba 1995 Sample Labels, Ciba Crop Protection, Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC 27419.Google Scholar
5. Greene, D. W., and Bukovac, M. J. 1974. Stomatal penetration: Effect of surfactants and role in foliar absorption. Am. J. Bot. 61:100–106.Google Scholar
6. Knoche, M., 1994. Organosilicone surfactants: Performance in agricultural spray application. A review. Weed Res. 34:221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Knoche, M., and Bukovac, M. J. 1993. Interaction of surfactant and leaf surface in glyphosate absorption. Weed Sci. 41:87–93.Google Scholar
8. Murphy, G. J., Policello, G. A., and Ruckle, R. E. 1991. Formulation consideration for trisiloxane based organosilicone adjuvants. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds, p. 355.Google Scholar
9. Policello, G. A., Ruckle, R. E., and Murphy, G. J. 1991. Formulation considerations for organosilicone adjuvants. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:403.Google Scholar
10. Roggenbuck, F. C., Rowe, L., Penner, D., Petroff, L., and Burow, R. 1990. Increasing postemergence herbicide efficacy and rainfastness with silicone adjuvants. Weed Technol. 4:576–580.Google Scholar
11. SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS Software Release 6.07. Cary, NC 27513.Google Scholar
12. Schonherr, J., and Bukovac, M. J. 1972. Penetration of stomata by liquids. Plant Physiol. 49:813–819.Google Scholar
13. Stevens, P.J.G., 1993. Organosilicone surfactants as adjuvants for agrochemicals. Pestic. Sci. 38:103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Stevens, P.J.G., Forster, W. A., Murphy, D. S., Policello, G. A., and Murphy, G. J. 1992. Surfactants and physical factors affecting adhesion of spray droplets on leaf surfaces. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:354–358.Google Scholar
15. Stevens, P.J.G., Gaskin, R. E., Hong, S. O., and Zabkiewicz, J. A. 1992. Pathways and mechanisms of foliar uptake as influenced by surfactants. p. 385–398 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
16. Sun, J., and Foy, C. L. 1996. Differences between Silwet L-77 and its blends in physiochemical properties and herbicidal enhancement of two sulfonylureas in four weed species (in press). The Second International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
17. Wade, van Valkenburg J., 1982. Terminology, classification and chemistry. p. 1–9 in Hodgson, R. H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar