Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:44:57.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nozzle, Spray Volume, and Adjuvant Effects on Carfentrazone and Imazamox Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradford K. Ramsdale*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Calvin G. Messersmith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: brad_ramsdale@ndsu.nodak.edu.

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to determine the influence of nozzle type, spray volume, and adjuvants on herbicide efficacy. Carfentrazone and imazamox, representing contact and translocated herbicides, respectively, were equally or more effective when applied with drift-reducing TurboDrop or Drift Guard nozzles than the conventional flat-fan nozzle in 95% of the comparisons. Imazamox was equally effective when applied in 47, 94, or 190 L/ha spray volume, regardless of nozzle type or adjuvant. Carfentrazone applied in 47 L/ha spray volume controlled flax and sunflower as well as in 94 or 190 L/ha, provided urea ammonium nitrate fertilizer and either nonionic surfactant or methylated vegetable oil were included in the spray mixture. Conversely, carfentrazone with only urea ammonium nitrate was less effective when applied in 47 than in 94 or 190 L/ha spray volume. Carfentrazone and imazamox applied in low spray volumes (47 L/ha) gave consistent control when an effective adjuvant was included in the spray mixture.

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1990. Effect of rate, carrier volume, and surfactant on imazamethabenz efficacy. Weed Technol. 4: 291293.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1993. Absorption and activity of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron in quackgrass as affected by adjuvants. Weed Sci. 41: 218224.Google Scholar
Bruns, D. E. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1998. Spray retention is affected by spray parameters, species, and adjuvants. In Nalewaja, J. D., Gross, G. R., and Tann, R. S., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 107119.Google Scholar
Buehring, N. W., Roth, L. O., and Santelmann, P. W. 1973. Plant response to herbicide spray drop size and carrier volume. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 16: 636637.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32: 574583.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Duke, S. O., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Selectivity and mode of action of carfentrazone-ethyl, a novel phenyl triazolinone herbicide. Pestic. Sci. 51: 6573.Google Scholar
Durgan, B. R., Yenish, J. P., Daml, R. J., and Miller, D. W. 1997. Broadleaf weed control in hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) with F8426. Weed Technol. 11: 489495.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Jourdan, S. W., Wyse, D. L., Somers, D. A., and Magnusson, M. U. 1993. Effect of ammonium sulfate on absorption of imazethapyr by quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and maize (Zea mays) cell suspension cultures. Weed Sci. 41: 325334.Google Scholar
Hall, K. J., Chapple, A. C., Downer, R. A., Kirchner, L. M., and Thacker, J.R.M. 1993. Pesticide application as affected by spray modifiers. Pestic. Sci. 38: 123133.Google Scholar
Joost, R. E. 1998. Benefits and mode of action of nitrogen fertilizers as adjuvants. In McMullan, P. M., ed. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Memphis, TN: Fifth International Symposium. pp. 259266.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactants on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 29: 7983.Google Scholar
McKinlay, K. S., Ashford, R., and Ford, R. J. 1974. Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci. 22: 3134.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Hanks, J. E. 1993. Effect of spray volume and pressure on postemergence johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol. 7: 304310.Google Scholar
Miller, P.C.H. and Butler Ellis, M. C. 1997. A review of spray generation, delivery to the target and how adjuvants influence the process. Plant Prot. Q. 12: 3338.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Ahrens, W. H. 1998. Adjuvants and spray volume affect herbicide efficacy. In McMullan, P. M., ed. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Memphis, TN: Fifth International Symposium. pp. 434441.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Skrzypczak, G. A., and Gillespie, G. R. 1986. Absorption and translocation of herbicides with lipid compounds. Weed Sci. 34: 564568.Google Scholar
Ozkan, E. 1998. New Nozzles for Spray Drift Reduction. Fact Sheet AEX 523-98. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 2 p.Google Scholar
Prasad, R. and Cadogan, B. L. 1992. Influence of droplet size and density on phytotoxicity of three herbicides. Weed Technol. 6: 415423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2001. Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol. 15: 453460.Google Scholar
Spraying Systems Co. 1998. Agricultural Spray Products. Catalog 47. Wheaton, IL: Spraying Systems. 144 p.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone-acetohydroxy acid synthase interactions. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 7190.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M. 2000. Low-drift nozzle efficacy with respect to herbicide mode of action. Aspects Appl. Biol. 57: 2934.Google Scholar
Womac, A. R., Goodwin, J. C., and Hart, W. E. 1997. Tip Selection for Precision Application of Herbicides. A Look-Up Table of Drop Sizes to Assist in the Selection of Nozzles. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 695.Google Scholar