Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:04:00.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Activity of Four Triclopyr Formulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2017

José Luiz C. S. Dias ,
Afsari Banu ,
Benjamin P. Sperry ,
Stephen F. Enloe ,
Jason A. Ferrell  and
Brent A. Sellers
José Luiz C. S. Dias*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Florida Range Cattle Research and Education Center, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865
Afsari Banu
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Associate Professor, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653
Benjamin P. Sperry
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
Stephen F. Enloe
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Associate Professor, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653
Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
Brent A. Sellers
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, Agronomy Department, University of Florida Range Cattle Research and Education Center, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Triclopyr is a synthetic auxin herbicide currently available as a triethylamine salt, butoxyethyl ester, pyridinyloxyacetic acid, or choline salt. The formulation of a herbicide has the potential to impact its activity; therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the relative activity of these four triclopyr formulations. Greenhouse dose–response studies were conducted twice at the University of Florida in 2015. The four formulations were foliar applied at rates ranging from 17 to 1,121 g ae ha−1 to 2- to 3-leaf soybean, sunflower, tomato, and cotton. The amine salt formulation provided the lowest ED50 values in tomato and sunflower (22.87 and 60.39 g ha−1, respectively); whereas in soybean, amine and choline formulations provided the lowest ED50 values (22.56 and 20.95 g ha−1, respectively). No differences between formulations were observed in cotton. These data suggest that (1) the amine salt formulation of triclopyr might be more active than the others on tomato and sunflower, and (2) the amine and choline salt formulations might be more active than the others on soybean. Further work must be conducted to determine whether there are differences among these formulations under a range of field conditions and target species. In addition, other important management factors such as applicator safety, volatility potential, and cost should be considered when choosing the best formulated product to be applied.

Keywords

Triclopyrcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L.Dose–responseED50triclopyr butoxyethyl estertriclopyr choline salttriclopyr pyridinyloxyacetic acidtriclopyr triethylamine salt
Type
Weed Management-Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 928 - 934
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this Paper: Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware.

References

Literature Cited

Abdi, H (2007) The Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. Pages 1–9 in Salkind N ed. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016a) Garlon® 3A herbicide product label. Dow Publication No. D02-101-041. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016b) Remedy® Ultra herbicides product label. Dow Publication No. D02-334-003. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 6 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016c) Trycera® herbicide product label. Helena Publication No. AD 050715. Collierville, TN: Helena Chemical Company. 33 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016d) Vastlan™ herbicide product label. Dow Publication No. D02-409-001. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Ashton, FM, Crafts, AS (1981) Mode of Action of Herbicides. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley. 504 pGoogle Scholar
Bauerle, MJ, Griffin, JL, Alford, JL, Curry, AB, Kenty, MM (2015) Field evaluation of auxin herbicide volatility using cotton and tomato as bioassay crops. Weed Technol 29:185–197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, JL, Burke, IC, Prather, TS (2011) Uptake, translocation and metabolism of aminocyclopyrachlor in prickly lettuce, rush skeletonweed and yellow starthistle. Pest Manag Sci 67:1338–1348 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bovey, RW, Ketchersid, ML, Merkle, MG (1970) Comparison of salt and ester formulations of picloram. Weed Sci 18:447–451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovey, RW, Morton, HL, Meyer, RE, Flynt, TO, Riley, TE (1972) Control of yaupon and associated species. Weed Sci 20:246–249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currier, HB, Dybing, CD (1959) Foliar penetration of herbicides—review and present status. Weeds 7:195–213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, MD, Duke, SO, Fedtke, C (1993) Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Pp 34–37 Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document: Triclopyr. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp 3–58 Google Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Mullahey, JJ, Langeland, KA, Kline, WN (2006) Control of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) with aminopyralid. Weed Technol 20:453–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, TB, Miller, JH (2005) Effect of application rate, timing, and formulation of glyphosate and triclopyr on control of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Weed Technol 19:47–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, R, Raveton, M, Cole, DJ, Pallet, KE, Coleman, JOD (2001) The identification and properties of apoplastic carboxylesterases from wheat that catalyse deesterification of herbicides. Pestic Biochem Phys 71:178–189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, HM, Pitty, A, Owen, MDK (2006) Effect of environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) leaf wax and fluazifop-P absorption. Weed Sci 54:607–614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, FD, Bayer, DE, Falk, RH (1981) Herbicide dispersal patterns: III. As a function of formulation. Weed Sci 29:224–229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, JT, Langeland, KA, Meisenberg, M (2011) Field trials for herbicide control of coral ardisia (Ardisia crenata) in natural areas of north central Florida. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:234–238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloppenburg, DJ, Hall, JC (1990a) Effects of formulation and environment on absorption and translocation of clopyralid in Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. and Polygonum convolvulus L. Weed Res 30:9–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloppenburg, DJ, Hall, JC (1990b) Efficacy of five different formulations of clopyralid on Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. and Polygonum convolvulus L. Weed Res 30:227–234 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loos, MA (1975) Phenoxyalkanoic acids. Pages 1–128 in Kearney PC, Kaufman DD eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. New York: Marcel Dekker Google Scholar
Macdonald, GE, Brecke, BJ, Colvin, DL, Shilling, DG (1994) Chemical and mechanical control of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Weed Technol 8:483–487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Bangarwa, SK, Scott, RC, Still, J, Griffith, GM (2010) Use of propanil and quinclorac tank mixtures for broadleaf weed control on rice (Oryza sativa) levees. Crop Prot 29:255–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozair, CA, Moshier, LJ, Werner, GM (1987) Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliage-applied chloramben in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 35:757–762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, JC, Bates, DM (2000) Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag. 530 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, CE (1983) The effect of environment on foliage uptake and translocation of herbicides. Asp Appl Biol 4:157–169 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Software 12:1–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonherr, J, Baur, P (1994) Modelling penetration of plant cuticle by crop protection agents and effects of adjuvants on their rates and penetration. Pestic Sci 42:185–208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. I. Quantifying injury cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:1125–1134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Ferrell, JA (2017) Weed Management in Pastures and Rangelands. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service SS-AGR-08. 19 pGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 322–361 Google Scholar
Snipes, CE, Street, JE, Mueller, TC (1991) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol 5:493–498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar