Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:14:31.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Glyphosate Salts (Isopropylamine, Diammonium, and Potassium) and Calcium and Magnesium Concentrations on the Control of Various Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas C. Mueller ,
Christopher L. Main ,
M. Angela Thompson  and
Lawrence E. Steckel
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg., Knoxville, TN 37996
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg., Knoxville, TN 37996
M. Angela Thompson
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg., Knoxville, TN 37996
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
The University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences, 2431 Joe Johnson Drive, 252 Ellington Plant Sciences Bldg., Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tmueller@tk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted near Knoxville, TN, during 2002 and 2003 to investigate the effects of calcium and magnesium ions on the performance of three glyphosate formulations with and without diammonium sulfate (AMS). Weed species investigated in the greenhouse were broadleaf signalgrass, pitted morningglory, Palmer amaranth, and yellow nutsedge. Three glyphosate formulations (isopropylamine salt, diammonium salt, and potassium salt) and two glyphosate application rates (0.42 and 0.84 kg ae/ha) were applied to weeds in water fortified with either calcium or magnesium at concentrations of 0, 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 ppm. In all comparisons, there were no differences in the three glyphosate formulations. Glyphosate activity was reduced only when cation concentration was >250 ppm, and this antagonism was not observed when 2% w/ w AMS was added to the spray solution. A chemical analysis of the calcium and magnesium concentrations in water collected from farmers indicated that water samples from eight different producers contained relatively low amounts of cations, with calcium at <40 ppm and magnesium at <8 ppm. In the field results using these and other waters as the herbicide carrier, broadleaf signalgrass control was greater with the 0.84 kg ae/ha than 0.42 kg ae/ha glyphosate rate regardless of water source or addition of AMS. Pitted morningglory responded similarly to glyphosate with water from all farms and with AMS added, and the addition of AMS gave similar results for both glyphosate rates. In 2003, common cocklebur was evaluated and control was >93% regardless of glyphosate rate, water source, or AMS addition. Based on these results, the addition of AMS-based adjuvants to many glyphosate applications may not be warranted.

Keywords

Glyphosatediammonium sulfatebroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla L. #3 BRAPPPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri L. # AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESsoybean, [Glycine Max (L). Merr. var ‘Asgrow 5602’]Antagonismhard waterDAT, days after treatmentICAP, inductively coupled argon plasma
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 164 - 171
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

Bouman, P. W. 1987. Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy, Part 1. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Buhler and Burnside. 1983. Effect of water quality, carrier volume and acid on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 31:163–169.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G. R., Delaney, D. R., and Sanders, J. C. 2004. Cotton and weed response to glyphosate applied with sulfur-containing additives. Weed Technol. 18:404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauvrit, C. 2003. Glyphosate response to calcium, ethoxylated amine surfactant, and ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol. 17:799–804.Google Scholar
Glass, R. L. 1984. Metal complex formation by glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32:1249–1253.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interaction of herbicides with other agricultural chemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–64.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrin, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 39:622–628.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1992a. 2,4-D and salt combinations affect glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Technol. 6:322–327.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1992b. Species differ in response to adjuvants with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 6:561–566.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993a. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993b. Influence of diammonium sulfate and other salts on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Pesticide Sci. 38:77–84.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Freeman, T. P. 1992. Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40:576–589.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hamman, W. M. 1981. Influence of nonionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality and spray volume on phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, D., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 2003. Substitutes for ammonium sulfate as additives for glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 17:576–581.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's guide Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 235–237.Google Scholar
Schonherr, J. and Schreiber, L. 2004. Interactions of calcium ions with weakly acidic active ingredients slow cuticular penetration: A case study with glyphosate. J. Agric. & Food Chem. 52:6546–6551.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Shey, P. J. and Tupy, D. R. 1984. Reversal of cation-induced reduction in glyphosate activity with EDTA. Weed Sci. 32:802–806.Google Scholar
Shillevg, D. G. and Waller, W. T. 1989. Interaction effects of diluent pH and calcium content of glyphosate activity on Panicum repens L. (torpedograss). Weed Res. 29:441–448.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541–548.Google Scholar