Availability of soybean with dicamba resistance will provide an alternative weed management option, but risk of dicamba injury to sensitive crops from off-target movement and spray tank contamination is of concern. Research conducted at multiple locations and years evaluated soybean injury and yield response to POST applications of the diglycolamine salt of dicamba. Dicamba was applied at the two to three trifoliate stage (V3/V4) at 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, 70, 140, and 280 g ae ha−1(1/128 to 1/2 of the recommended use rate of 560 g ae ha−1). Soybean injury 7 d after application was 20% following dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1and increased to 89% at 280 g ha−1. At 14 d after application, injury for the same rates increased from 39 to 97%. In a separate study, dicamba was applied at first flower (R1) at 1.1, 2.2, 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, and 70 g ha−1(1/512 to 1/8 of use rate). Soybean injury 7 d following dicamba application was 19% at 1.1 g ha−1and increased to 64% at 70 g ha−1. For the same rates of dicamba, injury from 7 to 14 d after application increased no more than 4 percentage points. For dicamba rates in common for the timing studies, soybean injury 14 d after treatment was greatest for application at V3/V4, but the negative effect on mature soybean height and yield was greatest for application at R1. For dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1(1/128th of use rate), soybean yield was reduced 4% when applied at V3/V4 and 10% when applied at R1. For 17.5 g ha−1dicamba (1/32 of use rate), yield was reduced 15% at V3/V4 and 36% at R1. Based on yield reductions for 4.4 and 17.5 g ha−1dicamba, soybean at flowering was around 2.5 times more sensitive compared with vegetative exposure.
Herbicides used as harvest aids are applied at crop maturity to desiccate weed and crop foliage. Weeds present in the harvested crop can increase moisture content and foreign material, reducing grade and market price. Weeds can also delay the harvest operation and reduce harvest efficiency. Glyphosate can be used to desiccate weeds in glyphosate-resistant crops without concern for crop injury. Carfentrazone and pyraflufen-ethyl used as harvest aids can be effective in desiccating broadleaf weeds in corn and soybean. Paraquat, although effective on grass and broadleaf weeds when applied late season, can cause significant crop injury if applied too early. With expanded production of early maturing soybean cultivars in the mid-South (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri bootheel, and west Tennessee), presence of green stems, green pods, or green leaf retention, or combinations of these at harvest has increased. Interest in harvest aids has shifted to use as a crop desiccant. Paraquat also is an effective soybean desiccant, but application timing differs for indeterminate and determinate cultivars. Paraquat applied after soybean seed reached physiological maturity reduced number of green stems, pods, and retained green leaves present, allowing harvest to proceed 1 to 2 wk earlier than nontreated soybean. Seed moisture, foreign material, and seed damage also were reduced when paraquat was applied.
Herbicide soil/solution distribution coefficients (Kd) are used in mathematical models to predict the movement of herbicides in soil and groundwater. Herbicides bind to various soil constituents to differing degrees. The universal soil colloid that binds most herbicides is organic matter (OM), however clay minerals (CM) and metallic hydrous oxides are more retentive for cationic, phosphoric, and arsenic acid compounds. Weakly basic herbicides bind to both organic and inorganic soil colloids. The soil organic carbon (OC) affinity coefficient (Koc) has become a common parameter for comparing herbicide binding in soil; however, because OM and OC determinations vary greatly between methods and laboratories, Koc values may vary greatly. This proposal discusses this issue and offers suggestions for obtaining the most accurate Kd, Freundlich constant (Kf), and Koc values for herbicides listed in the WSSA Herbicide Handbook and Supplement.
Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to investigate the compatibility of MSMA in a tank mixture with glyphosate or glufosinate for broadleaf and grass weed control. Glyphosate, glufosinate, and MSMA were evaluated at 0.5×, 1×, and 2× rates, with 1× rates of 0.84 kgae/ha, 0.5 kgai/ha, and 2.2 kgai/ha, respectively. Glyphosate and glufosinate provided similar levels of control for most weed species and were often more efficacious than MSMA alone. Glyphosate controlled Palmer amaranth better than glufosinate. Glufosinate controlled hemp sesbania, pitted morningglory, and ivyleaf morningglory better than glyphosate at one location. Weed control was not improved with the addition of MSMA to glyphosate or glufosinate when compared with either herbicide alone. MSMA antagonized glyphosate efficacy on barnyardgrass, browntop millet, hemp sesbania, Palmer amaranth, and redroot pigweed. MSMA antagonized glufosinate efficacy on browntop millet, hemp sesbania, ivyleaf morningglory, johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, redroot pigweed, and velvetleaf. Antagonism of glyphosate or glufosinate by MSMA was often overcome by applying the 2× rate of either herbicide alone. MSMA is not a compatible tank-mixture partner with glyphosate or glufosinate for weed control in cotton.
RESUMO-O sucesso de uma aplicação de herbicida está diretamente relacionado a uma boa deposição da calda no alvo, com o mínimo de perdas para o ambiente. Assim, o presente trabalho objetivou avaliar a deposição e o controle de plantas daninhas promovido pela aplicação de glyphosate em diferentes volumes de calda e com a adição do adjuvante nonil fenol etoxilado. O experimento foi conduzido em delineamento de blocos casualizados com quatro repetições, em esquema fatorial 3x2, sendo três volumes de calda (30, 60 e 150 L ha-1) e duas composições (com e sem adjuvante adicionado ao tanque). Inicialmente, foi realizada a caracterização físico-química das caldas pulverizadas. Foram avaliados, após a aplicação do glyphosate, utilizando pontas de pulverização hidráulicas de jato plano defletor: deposição de calda no alvo, perdas para o solo e controle de plantas daninhas. O adjuvante promoveu alterações de pequena magnitude nas propriedades físico-químicas da solução. Conclui-se que os menores volumes de calda proporcionaram maiores deposições nas plantas daninhas e menores perdas para o solo. O herbicida estudado proporcionou bom controle das plantas daninhas, independentemente da utilização do adjuvante e do volume de calda. Palavras-chave: deposição de calda, herbicida, propriedades físico-químicas, tecnologia de aplicação. ABSTRACT-A successful herbicide application is dependent upon a good spray deposition on the target, with a minimum loss to the environment. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate spray deposition and weed control with glyphosate using different spray volumes and with the addition of the adjuvant nonyl phenol ethoxylate. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design, in a factorial model 3x2, with three spray volumes (30, 60, and 150 L ha-1) and two spray solution compositions (with and without adjuvant added to the tank). Initially, the physical-chemical properties of the solutions were evaluated under laboratory conditions. Spray deposition, loss to the soil, and weed control were investigated. The adjuvant promoted minor alterations in the physical-chemical properties of the solution. It was concluded that the lowest spray volumes showed the best weed deposition, and the lowest loss for the soil. The adjuvant did not alter the results. The herbicide provided a good weed control irrespective of the volume and adjuvant used. INTRODUÇÃO As plantas daninhas prejudicam o desen-volvimento e a produtividade de muitos cultivos agrícolas, principalmente pelo fato de compe-tirem com a cultura por água, luz, nutrientes e espaço físico. Os prejuízos em produtividade decorrentes dessa competição devem-se espe-cialmente ao fato de que nas áreas agrícolas as plantas daninhas geralmente ocorrem em densidades bem superiores às das espécies cultivadas (Bianchi et al., 2006).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.