Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:59:06.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing postemergence herbicide deposition and efficacy through application variables in no-till systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas M. Wolf ,
S. Kent Harrison ,
Franklin R. Hall  and
Jane Cooper
S. Kent Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 202 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus OH 43210-1086
Franklin R. Hall
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Pest Control Application Technology, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691-4114
Jane Cooper
Affiliation:
Application Technology Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691-4114
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory experiments were conducted to determine the effects of application factors and standing Triticum aestivum stubble on herbicide spray deposition and efficacy in a simulated no-till environment. Spray deposition on weeds was reduced in the presence of stubble, and deposition losses on Amaranthus hybridus were greater than those on Setaria faberi. Spray penetration through stubble was significantly enhanced with electrostatic charging of a fine hydraulic spray. The combination of 45 kV electrostatic charge and 50 cm nozzle spacing produced maximum spray deposition on weeds and resulted in a 96% and 345% increase in deposition on A. hybridus and S. faberi, respectively, compared to the uncharged controls. Deposit reduction from standing stubble was greater at travel speeds of 16 km h−1 (36 to 52%) than 8 km h−1 (9 to 38%). On a dry weight and plant density basis, weeds retained more spray than was retained by stubble, yet stubble, at average densities, was capable of capturing 9 to 12% of total applied spray dose per unit area. Bounce studies of individual droplets of water or imazethapyr plus adjuvant mixture demonstrated that T. aestivum straw had a general affinity for all spray droplets, exhibiting no rebound even for 800-µm water droplets. Setaria faberi foliage exhibited poor retention of droplets: both 350- and 800-µm water droplets as well as 800-µm droplets of imazethapyr plus adjuvant mixture rebounded. Only 350-µm herbicide mixture droplets were retained by S. faberi. Amaranthus hybridus retained all droplets. In broadcast spraying, British Crop Protection Council “Medium” quality sprays were poorly retained by S. faberi compared to “Fine” sprays, whereas A. hybridus retained both sprays equally well. However, imazethapyr spray deposits resulting from coarser sprays were more efficacious on S. faberi than fine spray deposits, a difference that was not observed for A. hybridus.

Keywords

Imazethapyrmetalaxyl, N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)alanine methyl esterTriticum aestivum L., wheatAmaranthus hybridus L. AMACH, smooth pigweedSetaria faberi Herrm. SETFA, giant foxtailCarrier volumedroplet rebounddroplet sizeelectrostaticsspray retention
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 6 , December 2000 , pp. 761 - 768
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anderson, N. H., Hall, D. J., and Seaman, D. 1987. Spray retention: effects of surfactants and plant species. Asp. Appl. Biol. 14:233–243.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1992a. Data Sheets 37043-4 and 37043-5. Wheaton, IL: Spraying Systems Company.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1992b. Pursuit Herbicide specimen label for imazethapyr for use in soybeans or peanuts. Princeton, NJ: American Cyanamid.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. Product Information Guide, Energized Spray Process (ESP). Duluth, GA: AGCO Corporation.Google Scholar
Bache, D. H. and Johnstone, D. R. 1992. Microclimate and Spray Dispersion. 1st ed. London: Ellis Horwood Ltd. 239 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, A. G. 1988. Electrostatic Spraying of Liquids. Taunton, Great Britain: Research Studies Press Ltd. 197 p.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Influence of glyphosate concentration on glyphosate absorption and translocation in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 36:291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazee, R. D., Reichard, D. L., Bukovac, M. J., and Fox, R. D. 1991. A partitioned energy transfer model for spray impaction on plants. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 50:11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, B. K., Hislop, E. C., Herrington, P. J., Western, N. M., Jones, K. G., Woodley, S. E., and Chapple, A. C. 1986. Physical, chemical and biological appraisal of alternative spray techniques in cereals. Crop Prot. 5:155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downer, R. A., Wolf, T. M., Chapple, A. C., Hall, F. R., and Hazen, J. L. 1995. Characterizing the impact of drift management adjuvants on the dose transfer process. Pages 138–143 In Gaskin, R. E., ed. Fourth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotorua, New Zealand: New Zealand Forest Research Institute.Google Scholar
Fox, R. D., Reichard, D. L., and Brazee, R. D. 1992. A video analysis system for measuring droplet motion. Appl. Eng. Agric. 8:153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1990. Improving the efficiency of sethoxydim in flax. Weed Technol. 4:749–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghadiri, H., Shea, P. J., and Wicks, G. A. 1984. Interception and retention of atrazine by wheat (Triticum aestivum) stubble. Weed Sci. 32:24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harr, J., Guggenheim, R., Schulke, G., and Falk, R. H. 1991. The leaf surface of major weeds. Witterswill, Switzerland: Sandoz Agro Limited.Google Scholar
Hartley, G. S. and Brunskill, R. T. 1958. Reflection of water drops from surfaces. Pages 214–223 In Danielli, J. F., Parkhurst, K.G.A., and Giddiford, A. C., eds. Surface Phenomena in Chemistry and Biology. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hazen, J. L. and Olsen, R. L. 1995. AGRHÔ DR2000 drift reduction adjuvant—atomization performance evaluation under good laboratory practice (GLP) protocols. Pages 126–131 In Gaskin, R. E., ed. Fourth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. New Zealand: New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Rotorua.Google Scholar
Hislop, E. C. 1987. Can we define and achieve optimum pesticide deposits? Asp. Appl. Biol. 14:153–172.Google Scholar
Hislop, E. C. 1988. Electrostatic ground-rig spraying: an overview. Weed Technol. 2:94–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. K. and Kudsk, P. 1988. Prediction of herbicide activity. Weed Res. 28:473–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 13:163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, H. 1992. Technically determined and stochastic processes during spraying and their implications on dosage and distribution of pesticides. Gesunde Pfl. 44:350–360.Google Scholar
Lake, J. R. 1977. The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic. Sci. 8:515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Hanks, J. E. 1993. Effect of spray volume and pressure on postemergence johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol. 7:304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, N. 1982. The ‘Electrodyn’ sprayer: first studies of spray coverage in cotton. Crop Prot. 1:27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordbo, E., Kristensen, K., and Kirknel, E. 1993. Effects of wind direction, wind speed and travel speed on spray deposition. Pestic. Sci. 38:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T., O’Sullivan, P. A., and Caldwell, C. D. 1985. Basis for changes in glyphosate phytotoxicity to barley by the non-ionic surfactants Tween 20 and Renex 36. Weed Res. 25:81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, D. L. 1988. Drop formation and impaction on the plant. Weed Technol. 2:82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, D. L. 1990. A system for producing various sizes, numbers, and frequencies of uniform-size drops. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 33:1767–1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. G. 1997. Effect of drop trajectory on spray deposits on crop and weeds. Plant Prot. Q. 2:108–111.Google Scholar
Royneberg, T., Balke, N. E., and Lund-Hoie, K. 1992. Effects of adjuvants and temperature on glyphosate absorption by cultured cells of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.). Weed Res. 32:419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southcombe, E.S.E., Miller, P.C.H., Ganzelmeier, H., Van de Zande, J. C., Miralles, A., and Hewitt, A. J. 1997. The international (BCPC) spray classification system including a drift potential factor. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 5:371–380.Google Scholar
Spillman, J. J. 1984. Spray impaction, retention and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pestic. Sci. 15:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, P.J.G., Baker, E. A., and Anderson, N. H. 1988. Factors affecting the foliar absorption and redistribution of pesticides. 2. Physicochemical properties of the active ingredient and the role of surfactant. Pestic. Sci. 24:31–53.Google Scholar
Uk, S. and Courshee, R. J. 1982. Distribution and likely effectiveness of spray deposits within a cotton canopy from fine ultralow-volume spray applied by aircraft. Pestic. Sci. 13:529–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Caldwell, B. C., McIntyre, G. I., and Hsiao, A. I. 1992. Effect of droplet size and herbicide concentration on absorption and translocation of 14C-2,4-D in oriental mustard (Sysimbrium orientale). Weed Sci. 40:568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Harrison, S. K., and Hall, F. R. 1997. Spray deposit variability—implications for herbicide dose response. Pages 120–127 In Proceedings of the 1996 National Meeting, Expert Committee on Weeds, Victoria, BC, December 9–12, 1996. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests.Google Scholar