Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Simulated 2,4-D and Dicamba Drift

Everitt, John D.; Keeling, J. Wayne

doi:10.1614/wt-08-061.1

Cited by 62 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple applications of 1.4 g ae ha À1 of 2,4-D caused significant visual injury and yield loss but lower rates had only moderate to no yield loss, depending on year, despite high levels of visual injury. Everitt and Keeling (2009) conducted similar studies exposing cotton to rates from 0.28 to 280 g ae ha À1 of 2,4-D at various growth stages from cotyledon to full bloom. Despite auxin herbicide injury being observed, visual injury ratings overestimated eventual yield losses, especially at early application timings where injury ranging from 12 to 50% did not significantly affect yield up to 2.8 g ae ha À1 .…”

Section: Nontarget Plant Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

2,4-D Past, Present, and Future: A Review

Peterson

McMaster

Riechers³

et al. 2016

Weed technol.

241

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its discovery and initial commercialization in the 1940s, 2,4-D has been an important tool for weed control in a wide variety of crop and noncrop uses. Work studying its chemistry, physiology, mode of action, toxicology, environmental behavior, and efficacy has not only helped elucidate the characteristics of 2,4-D but also provided basic methods that have been used to investigate the properties of hundreds of herbicides that followed it. Much of the information published by researchers over 60 yr ago is still pertinent to understanding the performance of 2,4-D today. Further, new studies continue to be published, especially regarding the mechanisms of 2,4-D action at the molecular level. New uses for 2,4-D, sometimes enabled by biotechnology, continue to be developed. This review strives to provide an overall understanding of 2,4-D activity in plants, plant sensitivity to 2,4-D, toxicological impacts, and current and future uses.

show abstract

Section: Nontarget Plant Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

2,4-D Past, Present, and Future: A Review

Peterson

McMaster

Riechers³

et al. 2016

Weed technol.

241

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is potential for off-target movement that may result in damage to other adjacent, sensitive broadleaf plants. Although injury from low rates or simulated drift rates of several herbicides has been reported in many crops, dicamba and 2,4-D drift are of particular concern due to great potential of crop injury [49][50][51][52]. Plant response to these PGR herbicides is easily recognized as leaf cupping and crinkling and/or epinasty, and very low rates of herbicide may cause injury in susceptible plants [53].…”

Section: New Herbicide Trait Technologies and Developing Environmentamentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Challenges for Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Crops

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since weed management is such a critical component of agronomic crop production systems, herbicides are widely used to provide weed control to ensure that yields are maximized. In the last few years, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, particularly those that are glyphosate-resistant, and more recently, those with dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) and 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) resistance are changing the way many growers manage weeds. However, past reliance on glyphosate and mistakes made in stewardship of the glyphosate-resistant cropping system have directly led to the current weed resistance problems that now occur in many agronomic cropping systems, and new technologies must be well-stewarded. New herbicide-resistant trait technologies in soybean, such as dicamba-, 2,4-D-, and isoxaflutole- ((5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone) resistance, are being combined with glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistance traits to manage herbicide-resistant weed populations. In cropping systems with glyphosate-resistant weed species, these new trait options may provide effective weed management tools, although there may be increased risk of off-target movement and susceptible plant damage with the use of some of these technologies. The use of diverse weed management practices to reduce the selection pressure for herbicide-resistant weed evolution is essential to preserve the utility of new traits. The use of herbicides with differing sites of action (SOAs), ideally in combination as mixtures, but also in rotation as part of a weed management program may slow the evolution of resistance in some cases. Increased selection pressure from the effects of some herbicide mixtures may lead to more cases of metabolic herbicide resistance. The most effective long-term approach for weed resistance management is the use of Integrated Weed Management (IWM) which may build the ecological complexity of the cropping system. Given the challenges in management of herbicide-resistant weeds, IWM will likely play a critical role in enhancing future food security for a growing global population.

show abstract

“…Cotton is one of the most sensitive crops in terms of damage and yield loss from drift, or sub-lethal rates of 2,4-D [8,12,13]. Leaf and stem malformation, the abortion of fruiting structures, and yield loss have been observed in cotton exposed to sub-lethal rates of 2,4-D in previous simulated drift studies [12,[14][15][16][17]. Consequently, newly released technologies of 2,4-D resistant cotton (Enlist™, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN, USA), enable post-emergence applications of 2,4-D with a choline formulation less volatile than older formulation, specifically the ester formulation [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Visual rating of injury symptoms have been the typical method for quantifying damage from cotton exposed to 2,4-D drift [12,15,16,17,19]; however, visual ratings of injury are not consistently correlated with yield loss [12,14]. The use of aerial video and digital imaging has also been evaluated as an indicator or predictor of herbicide injury; however, the results suggest that this method is even less accurate than visual estimates [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chlorophyll a Fluorescence Parameters do not Detect Yield-limiting Injury from Sub-lethal Rates of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Byrd

Snider

Grey

et al. 2020

JEAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Determine if the use of novel chlorophyll a fluorescence parameters could be utilized to predict yield loss of cotton exposed to sublethal rates of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) at various growth stages. Study Design: All trials were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatment means were subjected to analysis of variance and linear regression was utilized to determine relationship between chlorophyll a parameters and yield. Place and Duration of Study: University of Georgia Gibbs Farm in Tifton, GA, USA and the Sunbelt Agricultural Exposition in Moultrie, GA, USA during the 2013 growing season. Methodology: Two sublethal rates of 2,4-D were applied to cotton at six distinct growth stages. The rates consisted of 2 g and 40 g ae ha-1 equivalent to 1/421 and 1/21 of the full rate (0.532 kg ae ha-1), respectively. The sublethal rates were applied to cotton at six growth stages, including the four leaf, nine leaf, first bloom, two, four and six weeks after first bloom growth stages. A fluorometer was used to obtain the fluorescence parameters Fv/Fm, ΦEO and PIABS from the uppermost fully expanded leaves at various intervals after 2,4-D exposure. Results: Despite yield losses ranging from 20 – 90% of the non-treated control, no consistent patterns resulted from utilizing fluorescence transients to detect 2,4-D injury and overall instances of significant difference were minimal and typically not biologically relevant. In many cases, treatments exposed to 2,4-D that exhibited yield loss showed evidence of greater photosynthetic efficiency than the non-treated control. In the majority of instances, many of fluorescence parameters measured fell within ranges observed in previous studies in cotton produced under typical or non-stressed conditions. Conclusion: While it has been proven as a valuable tool in other plant screening endeavors, chlorophyll a fluorescence were not able to detect the effects of sub-lethal rates of 2,4-D on cotton, even in instances that resulted in severe yield loss.

show abstract

Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Simulated 2,4-D and Dicamba Drift

Cited by 62 publications

References 16 publications

2,4-D Past, Present, and Future: A Review

2,4-D Past, Present, and Future: A Review

Emerging Challenges for Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Chlorophyll a Fluorescence Parameters do not Detect Yield-limiting Injury from Sub-lethal Rates of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About