Cotton, Peanut, and Soybean Response to Sublethal Rates of Dicamba, Glufosinate, and 2,4-D

Johnson, Virginia A.; Fisher, Loren R.; Jordan, David L.; Edmisten, Keith; Stewart, Amanda L.; York, Alan C.

doi:10.1614/wt-d-11-00054.1

Cited by 87 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…0.89) between peanut injury I 50 estimates (44 to 48 g ha 21 ) among the locations. A previous study documented that peanut treated with 140 g ha 21 of dicamba approximately 3 wk after crop emergence incurred 80% injury 2 WAT (Johnson et al, 2012a). Similar to each of the other application timings, peanut yield data declined in a linear manner as dicamba rate increased at V5 applications ( Figure 4b).…”

supporting

confidence: 57%

“…Peanut is commonly grown in the proximity of cotton and soybean across the southeast (Lassiter et al, 2007;Prostko et al, 2011;Prostko et al, 2013). Herbicide resistance technology is used in most cotton and soybean cultivars for weed management solutions, and the increased use of glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides throughout the growing season increased the occurrence of accidental injury to sensitive crops like peanut (Grey and Prostko, 2010;Johnson et al, 2012a;Lassiter et al, 2007). Peanut foliage injury can occur from herbicide residue remaining in the spray system when it is not properly cleaned prior to the next application in peanut (Grey and Prostko, 2010;Prostko et al, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study conducted in 2009 and 2010 included dicamba treatments at 0.6 to 140 g ae ha -1 applied three weeks after emergence (WAE) to peanut field plots. Visual estimates of injury were 30 to 80% at 2 weeks after treatment (WAT), and regression analysis indicated significant responses for yield when plotted against herbicide rate at three of the four locations (Johnson et al, 2012a). Leon et al (2014) indicated that dicamba at 35 to 560 g ae ha 21 caused 20 to 78% injury to peanut from applications made 21 and 42 DAP, and the highest rate reduced peanut yield by 65%.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Dicamba on Peanut When Applied during Vegetative Growth Stages

Blanchett¹,

Grey

Prostko³

et al. 2015

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean cultivars has created great concern about the potential off-target movement of dicamba onto sensitive species, including broadleaf crops. Peanut is often grown in close proximity to cotton and soybean. Therefore, field studies were conducted during 2012 and 2013 at Plains, Ty Ty, and Attapulgus, GA to evaluate peanut response to rates of dicamba (35, 70, 140, 280, and 560 g ae ha 21 ) applied at preemergence (PRE), 10, 20, or 30 d after planting (DAP) corresponding to PRE, V2, V3, and V5 peanut growth stages, respectively. Nontreated controls were included for comparison. As dicamba rate increased, both peanut injury and peanut yield loss increased. Peanut response to dicamba was fit to log-logistic regression models for injury and linear regression models for yield loss. Peanut injury increased with rate of dicamba, but was variable among the locations. A general trend was that peanut plants became more sensitive to dicamba injury as plants approached reproductive stage, as evidenced through a declining linear relationship between I 50 values (i.e. rate of dicamba that elicits a 50% crop response) and timing of application. PRE applications of dicamba had I 50 values that ranged from 125 to 323 g ha 21 of dicamba, while I 50 values were 44 to 48 g ha 21 of dicamba at the V5 peanut growth stage. There was a linear relationship between peanut yield and dicamba rate, with 560 g ha 21 causing maximum yield losses ranging from 0 to 86% when applied PRE, 24 to 82% when applied at V2 growth stage, 30 to 95% when applied at V3 growth stage, and 45 to 88% when applied at V5 growth stage. Across all treatments and locations, there was also a negative linear relationship between peanut yield and peanut crop injury, with a decline of 8.5% yield for every 10% increase in crop injury. Growers and their consultants/extension agents can use this peanut injury data to predict potential peanut yield loss from sprayer contamination or off-target movement of dicamba.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Dicamba on Peanut When Applied during Vegetative Growth Stages

Blanchett¹,

Grey

Prostko³

et al. 2015

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This supports previous findings from North Carolina, where no major reductions in peanut yield were observed when glufosinate was applied 21 days after peanut emergence at rates # 67 g/ha . Additionally, in North Carolina peanut yield losses ranged from 33 to 75% when applied at 302 g/ha of glufosinate (Johnson et al 2012). At higher rates in Texas (470 to 580 g/ha glufosinate), peanut death resulted when applied to plants that were 8 to 10 cm tall (Grichar and Dotray 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early tests conducted in North Carolina indicated that peanut yield was reduced 14 to 74% when glufosinate was applied at rates ranging between 135 to 538 g/ha . Subsequent North Carolina tests reported peanut yield was reduced 33 to 75% by 302 g/ha of glufosinate in 4 out of 4 site-years and 25% by 123 g/ ha in 1 of 4 site-years (Johnson et al 2012). However, both of these tests were conducted using only one application timing, approximately 25 to 28 DAP.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Glufosinate Application Timing and Rate Affect Peanut Yield

Prostko

Webster²,

Marshall

et al. 2013

Peanut Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted at 13 locations across the US peanut belt during 2010-2012 to evaluate peanut response to postemergence applications of glufosinate. Glufosinate was applied at 0, 41, 82, 164, 328 and 656 g ai/ha 30, 60, and 90 days after planting (DAP). There was a significant interaction for peanut yield between application time and glufosinate rate; peanut yield data were regressed on rate of glufosinate and fit to a log-logistic dose response curve by application timing. At 30 DAP, peanut yield ranged from 16 to 92% of the non-treated control, with glufosinate at 266 g/ha causing an estimated 50% reduction in yield (Y 50 ). At 60 DAP, peanut yield ranged from 16 to 82% of the nontreated control, with Y 50 5 266 g/ha of glufosinate. Peanut yield when glufosinate was applied at 90 DAP ranged from 20 to 78% of the non-treated control; Y 50 5 187 g/ha of glufosinate, which was lower than that at 30 DAP and indicated greater peanut sensitivity. Peanut plants treated at 30 DAP had more time to recover from glufosinate injury at the lower rates and/or were in a less susceptible stage of growth relative to 90 DAP. These data provide peanut growers across the US with an estimate of potential yield losses associated with mis-application, off-target movement, or sprayer contamination of glufosinate.

show abstract

Soybean response to dicamba exposure in furrow irrigation

Grantz

Lee

Willett

et al. 2020

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensitive crop exposure to residual dicamba in irrigation is a potential hazard in regions with overlapping use of transgenic dicamba‐resistant crops and on‐farm water storage–tailwater recovery (OFWS‐TWR) systems. This field study examined non–dicamba‐resistant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] for response to a dicamba dose gradient (7.6–630 g ae ha−1) in a furrow irrigation system. In a second study, growth stage and application timing effects were explored, with dicamba applied at 160 g ae ha−1 in entirety to V3 or R1 soybean or split across exposure events. Plant injury 14 and 28 d after treatment (DAT) increased with dose, with significant injury at 160–630 g ae ha−1. Plant injury 28 DAT was higher after split exposure compared with single exposure. Height and yield reduction occurred at 160–630 g ae ha−1 and in plants treated at reproductive growth stages. Regression models associated yield loss of 10, 20, and 30%, with effective doses of 19, 43, and 110 g ae ha−1, respectively, and plant injury 14 DAT of ∼10, ∼25, and ∼40%, respectively. Dicamba doses in irrigation that elicited equivalent response to foliar exposure were up to an order of magnitude higher, suggesting soybean plants are less sensitive to root uptake of dicamba. Alternately, dissipation in the environment may reduce total uptake. Off‐target dicamba exposure in irrigation will likely result in yield loss if tailwater dicamba concentrations exceeding ∼0.20 mg L−1 in 30.8 ha‐mm irrigation. This high residual concentration would likely only occur in OFWS‐TWR systems under “worst‐case scenario” conditions.

show abstract

Cotton, Peanut, and Soybean Response to Sublethal Rates of Dicamba, Glufosinate, and 2,4-D

Cited by 87 publications

References 25 publications

The Effect of Dicamba on Peanut When Applied during Vegetative Growth Stages

The Effect of Dicamba on Peanut When Applied during Vegetative Growth Stages

Glufosinate Application Timing and Rate Affect Peanut Yield

Soybean response to dicamba exposure in furrow irrigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About