Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:29:27.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Addition of Nonionic Surfactant to Glyphosate Plus Chlorimuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, 277 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0359
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science Department, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jnorswo@clemson.edu

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in South Carolina and Georgia to evaluate weed control and soybean tolerance and yield after nonionic surfactant addition to combinations of chlorimuron plus an adjuvant-containing glyphosate formulation. Treatments included glyphosate alone, at 420 or 840 g ae/ha, or in combination with 6 or 9 g ai/ha chlorimuron and all possible combinations with or without 0.25% (v/v) nonionic surfactant. Other treatments included a weed-free and nontreated check. Chlorimuron plus glyphosate improved entireleaf, smallflower, and tall morningglory control over glyphosate alone, but nonionic surfactant addition did not further improve the control of any species, except tall morningglory. Up to 31% early-season injury was observed with the three-way mixture. Soybean injury was greater, and yields were reduced in one of three trials when nonionic surfactant was added to chlorimuron plus glyphosate combinations. This research indicates that there would be no benefit from the nonionic surfactant addition to this adjuvant-containing glyphosate formulation when combined with chlorimuron.

Type
Research
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.)

Footnotes

∗ Technical contribution 4855 from the South Carolina Agriculture and Forestry Research System.

References

Literature Cited

Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stage of Soybean Development. Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Special Rep. 80. 12 p.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Batts, R. B. 1998. Annual grass control by glyphosate plus bentazon, chlorimuron, fomesafen, and imazethapyr mixtures. Weed Technol. 12:134136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Raymer, P. 2002. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control in glyphosate-resistant soybean with narrow rows and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:669674.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laerke, P. E. and Streibig, J. C. 1995. Foliar absorption of some glyphosate formulations and their efficacy on plants. Pestic. Sci 44:107116.Google Scholar
Lich, J. M., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate with postemergence soybean (Glycine max) herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:1221.Google Scholar
Norris, J. L., Shaw, D. R., and Snipes, C. E. 2001. Weed control from herbicide combinations with three formulations of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:522558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol. 15:725731.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Pitted morningglory interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Weed Sci. 50:2633.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliver, L. R., and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Diurnal leaf movement effects on spray interception and glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 13:466470.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glypohsate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14:413422.Google Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11:384393.Google Scholar
Riechers, D. E., Wax, L. M., Liebl, R. A., and Bush, D. R. 1994. Surfactant-increased glyphosate uptake into plasma membrane vesicles isolated from common lambsquarters leaves. Plant Physiol 105:14191425.Google Scholar
Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986. Effects of adjuvants and environment during plant development on glyphosate absorption and translocation in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34:811816.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46:652660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Agricultural Chemical Usage—2001 Field Crops Summary. Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/. Accessed: May 2002.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140149.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., and Blouin, D. C. 2002. Evaluation of reduced rates of glyphosate and chlorimuron in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:731736.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244259.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. and Walker, R. H. 1997. Interaction of glyphosate and 2,4-DB for the control of selected morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species. Weed Technol. 11:152156.Google Scholar