Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:48:10.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Broadcast Spray Nozzle on the Deposition, Absorption, and Efficacy of Dicamba plus Glyphosate on Four Glyphosate-Resistant Dicot Weed Species

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: T. R. Legleiter, P.O. Box 469, University of Kentucky Research and Education Center, Princeton, KY 42445. (Email: Travis.Legleiter@uky.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dicamba-resistant soybean technology provides an additional site of action for POST control of herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds in soybean but also raises concern of off-site movement and damage to sensitive crops in adjacent fields. Dicamba formulations approved for use on dicamba-resistant soybean require applicators to use nozzles producing large droplets to reduce the risk of spray-particle drift. The use of nozzles with relatively larger droplet spectra can reduce herbicide deposition on target weeds, especially if a filtering effect from the crop canopy occurs. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the influence of broadcast nozzle design on the deposition and efficacy of 280 g ha−1 glyphosate plus 140 g ha−1 dicamba applied POST to four herbicide-resistant weed species. The TTI11004 nozzle, the original nozzle labeled for dicamba applications on dicamba-resistant soybean, reduced deposition coverage and density on spray cards compared with the TT11004 and XR11004 nozzle. The AIXR11004 nozzle produces a very coarse droplet spectrum and did not reduce coverage on spray cards, though it did reduce deposition density. Herbicide solution deposition onto Palmer amaranth, tall waterhemp, giant ragweed, and horseweed ranged from 0.41 to 0.52, 0.55 to 0.87, 0.49 to 0.58, and 0.38 to 0.41 µl cm−2, respectively. Nozzle design and droplet spectrum did not influence the deposition of herbicide solution onto the target weed, as all nozzles were equivalent for all species and site-years. Herbicide efficacy was not influenced by nozzle design, as weed control and plant height reduction were similar for all species. The results of this experiment show that the use of the TTI11004 nozzle for dicamba applications to dicamba-resistant soybean will provide acceptable herbicide deposition and efficacy when applied under the label requirements of weed height and carrier volume.

Keywords

Dicambaglyphosategiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAtall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer (= A. rudis) AMATUsoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.Droplet densityPOST applicationspray coverage
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 174 - 181
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
Baysinger, JA, Sims, BD (1991) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 39:358–362 Google Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, Lavallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bode, L (1987) Spray application technology. Pages 85–110 in McWorter G, Gebhardt MR, eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. WSSA Monograph 4. Champaign, IL: WSSA Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2016). A season to remember: our experiences with off-target movement of dicamba in Missouri. Page 75 in Proceedings of the 2016 North Central Weed Science Society Annual Meeting. Des Moines, IA: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, SK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778–786 Google Scholar
Chang, FY, Vanden Born, WH (1971) Dicamba uptake, translocation, metabolism, and selectivity. Weed Sci 19:113–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combellack, JH (1982) Loss of herbicides from ground sprayers. Weed Res 22:193–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, VM, Johnson, WG (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza Canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in no-till soybean. Weed Sci 56:231–236 Google Scholar
Dorr, G, Hanan, J, Adkins, S, Hewitt, A, O’Donnell, C, Noller, B (2008) Spray deposition on plant surfaces: a modelling approach. Funct Plant Biol 35:988–996 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Google Scholar
Fritz, B, Hoffmann, W, Jank, P (2011) A fluorescent tracer method for evaluating spray transport and fate of field and laboratory spray applications. J ASTM Int 8:1–9 Google Scholar
Gibson, KD, Johnson, WG, Hillger, DE (2005) Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:1065–1070 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017). International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 1, 2017Google Scholar
Hilz, E, Vermeer, AP (2013) Spray drift review: the extent to which a formulation can contribute to spray drift reduction. Crop Prot 44:75–83 Google Scholar
Johnson, B, Whitford, F, Weller, SC, Legleiter, T (2012) 2,4-D and Dicamba-Tolerant Crops—Some Factors to Consider. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Extension ID-453-W Google Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K, Steckel, L, Moechnig, M, Loux, M, Bernards, M, Smeda, R (2010). Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans. Online. Crop Manag 9:10.1094/CM-2010-0920-01 RSGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178 Google Scholar
Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Doohan, DJ, Weller, SC (2012) Dose Response of glyphosate and dicamba on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) injury. Weed Technol 26:256–260 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 Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR, Johnson, WG (2016) Herbicide coverage in narrow row soybean as influenced by spray nozzle design and carrier volume. Crop Prot 83:1–8 CrossRefGoogle 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
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 (2013) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526–536 Google 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 Google 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
Webster, TM, Loux, MM, Regnier, EE, Harrison, SK (1994) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 8:559–564 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 (press release). http://wssa.net/2016/04/wssa-survey-ranks-palmer-amaranth-as-the-most-troublesome-weed-in-the-u-s-galium-as-the-most-troublesome-in-canada. Accessed: May 15, 2017Google Scholar