Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:29:44.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate plus 2,4-D Deposition, Absorption, and Efficacy on Glyphosate-Resistant Weed Species as Influenced by Broadcast Spray Nozzle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2017

Travis R. Legleiter ,
Bryan G. Young  and
William G. Johnson
Travis R. Legleiter*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
*
Author for correspondence: Travis R. Legleiter, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The introduction of 2,4-D–resistant soybean will provide an additional POST herbicide site of action for control of herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds. The introduction of this technology also brings concern of off-site movement of 2,4-D onto susceptible crops such as sensitive soybean and tomato. The 2,4-D formulation approved for use in 2,4-D–resistant soybean restricts application of the herbicide to nozzles that produce very coarse to ultra-coarse droplet spectrums. The use of larger droplet spectrums for broadcast applications can reduce herbicide deposition onto target weeds and thus influence herbicide efficacy. Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the influence of nozzle design on herbicide deposition onto target plants and the resulting efficacy of a POST application of 280 g ha−1 glyphosate plus 280 g ha−1 2,4-D. The TTI11004 nozzle produced an ultra-coarse droplet spectrum and reduced coverage and deposition density on spray cards as compared with the XR11004 and TT11004 nozzles that produced medium droplet spectrums. The AIXR11004 nozzle also reduced deposition density on spray cards but did not reduce coverage. Herbicide solution deposition onto glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, tall waterhemp, giant ragweed, and horseweed ranged from 0.28 to 0.72 µl cm−2 and was not influenced by nozzle design. Herbicide efficacy was reduced by the TTI11004 nozzle on Palmer amaranth and horseweed compared with the AIXR11004, TT11004, and XR11004 nozzles when applications were made to either high densities of plants or plants exceeding the labeled height. The use of the AIXR11004 and TTI11004 nozzles that are listed as approved nozzles for glyphosate plus 2,4-D applications on 2,4-D–resistant soybean did not reduce herbicide deposition onto four of the most troublesome broadleaves and did not reduce herbicide efficacy when applied in conjunction with lower weed densities and smaller weeds.

Keywords

Prashant Jha, Montana State University2,4-Dglyphosategiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAtall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer (=A. rudis) AMATUsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L.Droplet densityPOST applicationspray coverage
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 141 - 149
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Abul-Fatih, HA Bazzaz, FA (1979) The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. II. Germination, emergence, growth and survival. New Phytol 83:817–827 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Enlist Duo™ specimen label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC Google Scholar
Baysinger, JA Sims, BD (1991) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 39:358–362 Google Scholar
Bode, L (1987) Spray application technology. Pages 85–110 in Methods of Applying Herbicides . Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Bradley, KW Sweets, LE (2008) Influence of glyphosate and fungicide coapplications on weed control, spray penetration, soybean response, and yield in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Agron J 100:1360 Google 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
Combellack, JH (1982) Loss of herbicides from ground sprayers. Weed Res 22:193–204 Google Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of herbicide programs on weed management in soybean with resistance to glufosinate and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:78–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, VM Johnson, WG (2008) Glyphosate-resistant Horeweed (Conyza Canadensis) Emergence, Survival, and Fecundity in No-till Soybean. Weed Sci 56:231–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franssen, AS, Skinner, DZ, Al-Khatib, K, Horak, MJ, Peter, A Kulakow, PA (2001) Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 49:598–606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, KD, Johnson, WG Hillger, DE (2005) Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:1065–1070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, SO, Conley, SP, Shaner, GE Santini, JB (2008) Fungicide application timing and row spacing effect on soybean canopy penetration and grain yield. Agron J 100:1488 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 1, 2017Google Scholar
Johnson, AK, Roeth, FW, Martin, AR Klein, RN (2006) Glyphosate spray drift management with drift-reducing nozzles and adjuvants. Weed Technol 20:893–897 Google Scholar
Johnson, B, Whitford, F, Weller, SC Legleiter, T (2012) 2,4-D and Dicamba-Tolerant Crops—Some Factors to Consider. Purdue Extension ID-453-W. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/id/id-453-w.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2017Google Scholar
Jordan, TN Romanowski, RR (1974) Comparison of dicamba and 2,4-D injury to field-grown tomatoes. HortScience 9:74–75 Google Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178 Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Bradley, KW Massey, RE (2009) Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control and economic returns with herbicide programs in soybean. Weed Technol 23:54–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marth, PC Mitchell, JW (1944) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid as a differential herbicide. Bot Gaz 106:224–232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, PCH Ellis, MCB (2000) Effects of formulation on spray nozzle performance for applications form ground-based boom sprayers. Crop Prot 19:609–615 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 Google Scholar
Nuyttens, D, Baetens, K, De Schampheleire, M Sonck, B (2007) Effect of nozzle type, size and pressure on spray droplet characteristics. Biosyst Eng 97:333–345 Google Scholar
Ramsdale, BK Messersmith, CG (2001) Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol 15:453–460 Google Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM Johnson, WG (2012) Summer annual weed control with 2,4-D and glyphosate. Weed Technol 26:657–660 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM Johnson, WG (2013) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526–536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Steckel, LE Walsh, MJ (2016) Tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seed production and retention at soybean maturity. Weed Technol 30:284–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014) USDA Indiana Agriculture Report. Layfayette, IN: USDA Indiana Field OfficeGoogle Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20240–20245 Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) WSSA Survey Ranks Palmer Amaranth as the Most Troublesome Weed in the U.S., Galium as the Most Troublesome in Canada. http://wssa.net/2016/04/wssa-survey-ranks-palmer-amaranth-as-the-most-troublesome-weed-inthe-u-s-galium-as-the-most-troublesome-in-canada. Accessed May 15, 2016Google Scholar