Response of Bell Pepper and Broccoli to Simulated Drift Rates of 2,4-D and Dicamba

Mohseni-Moghadam, Mohsen; Doohan, Douglas

doi:10.1614/wt-d-14-00105.1

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through genetic engineering, soybeans have been transformed to tolerate preplant, PRE, and POST applications of dicamba (Behrens et al 2007). This technology (Roundup Ready 2 Xtend, ® Bayer Crop Science, Research Triangle Park, NC), fully available to farmers in 2017 [i.e., dicamba-resistant (DR) trait and labeled POST dicamba application], offers an additional POST option for controlling broadleaf weeds in soybean fields (Johnson et al 2010; Vink et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of Nebraska Farmers’ Adoption of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean Technology and Dicamba Off-Target Movement

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean was commercially available to farmers in the United States. In August and September of 2017, a survey of 312 farmers from 60 Nebraska soybean-producing counties was conducted during extension field days or online. The objective of this survey was to understand farmers’ adoption and perceptions regarding DR soybean technology in Nebraska. The survey contained 16 questions and was divided in three parts: (1) demographics, (2) dicamba application in DR soybean, and (3) dicamba off-target injury to sensitive soybean cultivars. According to the results, 20% of soybean hectares represented by the survey were planted to DR soybean in 2017, and this number would probably double in 2018. Sixty-five percent of survey respondents own a sprayer and apply their own herbicide programs. More than 90% of respondents who adopted DR soybean technology reported significant improvement in weed control. Nearly 60% of respondents used dicamba alone or glyphosate plus dicamba for POST weed control in DR soybean; the remaining 40% added an additional herbicide with an alternative site of action (SOA) to the POST application. All survey respondents used one of the approved dicamba formulations for application in DR soybean. Survey results indicated that late POST dicamba applications (after late June) were more likely to result in injury to non-DR soybean compared to early POST applications (e.g., May and early June) in 2017. According to respondents, off-target dicamba movement resulted both from applications in DR soybean and dicamba-based herbicides applied in corn. Although 51% of respondents noted dicamba injury on non-DR soybean, 7% of those who noted injury filed an official complaint with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Although DR soybean technology allowed farmers to achieve better weed control during 2017 than previous growing seasons, it is apparent that off-target movement and resistance management must be addressed to maintain the viability and effectiveness of the technology in the future.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of Nebraska Farmers’ Adoption of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean Technology and Dicamba Off-Target Movement

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported injury from simulated glyphosate drift on specialty crops such as onion [Allium cepa (Felix et al, 2012)], potato (Felix et al, 2011;Hatterman-Valenti, 2014), and tomato [Solanum lycopersicum (Gilreath et al, 2001a;McNaughton et al, 2012)]. Several studies have also reported injury from simulated dicamba drift on specialty crops such as bell pepper [Capsicum annuum (Gilreath et al, 2001b;Mohseni-Moghadam and Doohan, 2015)], broccoli [Brassica oleracea var. italica (Mohseni-Moghadam and Doohan, 2015)], dry edible pea (Al-Khatib and Tamhane, 1999), potato (Colquhoun et al, 2014;Wall, 1994), snap bean [Phaseolus vulgaris (Colquhoun et al, 2014)], tomato (Kruger et al, 2012), and yellow squash [Cucumis melo (Dittmar et al, 2016)].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Glyphosate and Dicamba Drift Injury to Dry Edible Pea, Dry Edible Bean, and Potato

Hatterman‐Valenti

Endres

Jenks

et al. 2017

hortte

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field trials using sublethal doses of glyphosate, dicamba, or mixtures of both herbicides on dry edible pea (Pisum sativum), dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and potato (Solanum tuberosum) were conducted at six locations to determine the injury potential if spray drift were to occur. All studies used three increasing sublethal doses of glyphosate and dicamba, which were labeled as low, medium, and high. The doses for each herbicide varied for the three crops because of expected sensitivity differences. Herbicide doses were targeted for the reproductive stage 1 with dry edible pea and dry edible bean, and at tuber initiation for potato. Visible injury 20 days after the treatment ranged from 0% to 13% for dry edible pea, 0% to 53% for dry edible bean, and 0% to 50% for potato. Compared with the nontreated, yield was least when doses included dicamba, regardless of the crop. Dry edible bean was the most sensitive crop to sublethal doses of dicamba, followed by dry edible pea and potato. Results from these six studies suggested that drift injury potential to dry edible pea, dry edible bean, and potato will be greater if a dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max) crop is adjacent and upwind compared with a glyphosate-resistant crop. Results also reinforce the need for diligence in the application of these herbicides in proximity to susceptible crops and the need to thoroughly clean sprayers before spraying a sensitive crop.

show abstract

“…One concern with applying auxin herbicides in current production systems is the sensitivity that many other plant species have to these herbicides (Egan et al, 2014). For some broadleaf species, sensitivity is so great that significant damage can be seen at sub-lethal or drift rates (Egan et al, 2014;Leon et al, 2014;Mohsen-Moghadan and Doohan, 2015). In order to mitigate the potential of offtarget movement of these herbicides current labels contain certain application requirements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Nozzle Type on Peanut Weed Control Programs

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increase in herbicide-resistant weeds over the past decade has led to the introduction of crops that are resistant to auxin herbicides. Strict application procedures are required for the use of auxin herbicides in auxin-resistant crops to minimize off-target movement. One requirement for application is the use of nozzles that will minimize drift by producing coarse droplets. Generally, an increase in droplet size can lead to a reduction in coverage and efficacy depending upon the herbicide and weed species. In studies conducted in 2015 and 2016, two of the potential required auxin nozzle types [(AIXR11002 (coarse) and TTI11002 (ultra-coarse)] were compared to a conventional flat-fan drift guard nozzles [DG11002 (medium)] for weed control in peanut herbicide systems. Nozzle type did not influence annual grass or Palmer amaranth control in non-crop tests. Results from in-crop tests indicated that annual grass control was 5% to 6% lower when herbicides were applied with the TTI nozzle when compared to the AIXR or DG nozzles. However, Palmer amaranth control and peanut yield was not influenced by coarsedroplet nozzles. Peanut growers using the coarsedroplet nozzles need to be aware of potential reduced grass control.

show abstract

Response of Bell Pepper and Broccoli to Simulated Drift Rates of 2,4-D and Dicamba

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Survey of Nebraska Farmers’ Adoption of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean Technology and Dicamba Off-Target Movement

Survey of Nebraska Farmers’ Adoption of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean Technology and Dicamba Off-Target Movement

Defining Glyphosate and Dicamba Drift Injury to Dry Edible Pea, Dry Edible Bean, and Potato

The Influence of Nozzle Type on Peanut Weed Control Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About