Soybean response to dicamba exposure in furrow irrigation

Grantz, Erin M.; Lee, Jung Ae; Willett, Cammy D.; Norsworthy, Jason K.

doi:10.1002/agg2.20039

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessments of crop sensitivities to residual herbicides in irrigation are limited. Soybean is sensitive to dicamba doses in irrigation exceeding ∼30–160 g ha −1 equivalent to 0.05–0.14 mg L −1 in 3 ac‐in of irrigation (Grantz, Lee, Willett, & Norsworthy, 2020; Willett, Grantz, Lee, Thompson, & Norsworthy, 2019). This study detected 2,4‐D, quinclorac, clomazone, glyphosate, and propanil concentration maxima of similar magnitude to the dicamba concentration range reported to injure soybean.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residual herbicide concentrations in on‐farm water storage–tailwater recovery systems: Preliminary assessment

Grantz¹,

Leslie

Reba

et al. 2020

Agricultural & Env Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On-farm water storage-tailwater recovery systems reduce groundwater usage and intercept agrochemical loads, but pesticide residue dynamics in these systems are not well understood. This study monitored concentrations of seven herbicides in seven northeast Arkansas tailwater recovery systems (April 2017-March 2018). Clomazone, glyphosate, metolachlor, and quinclorac were frequently detected, with minimal detections of 2,4-D, dicamba, and propanil. Concentrations peaked during the growing season (1 Apr.-15 Sept.), reflecting an interaction of application and precipitation. Clomazone, glyphosate, and quinclorac concentrations were greater in ditches (<0.80-67, <0.50-6.2, and <0.40-62 μg L −1 , respectively) than in the associated reservoir (<0.80-6.0, <0.50-4.1, and <0.40-6.0 μg L −1 , respectively), but metolachlor concentrations were not different between structure types (maximum 22-32 μg L −1 ). Off-season concentrations were mostly below detection, except for quinclorac. Cycling recovered tailwater through the system and irrigating from reservoirs may minimize risk of cross-crop contaminations with residual herbicides. Managed groundwater recharge should use reservoir water during winter to protect groundwater quality.Abbreviations: BMP, best management practice; MAR, managed aquifer recharge; OFWS-TWR, on-farm water storage-tailwater recovery; SPE, solid phase extraction.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residual herbicide concentrations in on‐farm water storage–tailwater recovery systems: Preliminary assessment

Grantz¹,

Leslie

Reba

et al. 2020

Agricultural & Env Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many outside factors such as irrigation, fertility, and temperature have been documented to influence soybean yield following dicamba exposure (Al-Khatib & Peterson, 1999;Auch & Arnold, 1978;Kniss, 2018); however, outside factors, such as irrigation, may also be responsible for the severity of herbicide symptoms. The uptake of herbicides, specifically dicamba, is known to increase as the availability of water likewise increases, especially in low-lying areas of the field (Grantz et al, 2020). Less cumulative rainfall was observed following the R1 dicamba application timing in 2018, equating to approximately 0.4 inches from 0 to 14 d after treatment (DAT).…”

Section: Visible Injurymentioning

confidence: 99%

Does dicamba exposure elicit a hormetic response in sensitive soybean?

Castner

Norsworthy

Barber³

et al. 2021

Crop Forage & Turfgrass Mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applications of dicambaherbicide to dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) may increase the risks of non-DR soybean exposure to dicamba. Dicamba residue in sprayers poses a challenge for applicators that also treat non-DR soybean. Risks for non-DR soybean producers increase as the planted acreage and usage of DR crops increases, as there is potential for volatilization of the herbicide in the summer months, posing a risk for nearby non-DR soybean producers. There has been widespread speculation that a low-dose exposure of dicamba to sensitive soybean may elicit a positive response in yield or yield components of the crop. Therefore, experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 to assess the ability of dicamba to cause a hormetic response on a sensitive soybean. Dicamba at 0.000008, 0.0000125, 0.000025, 0.00005, and 0.0001 lb a.i. acre -1 was applied to soybean at the V3 stage along with a nontreated control. Similar treatments were applied to soybean at the R1 stage in a second experiment. In 2018, 4 out of 60 treatment means across six yield parameters had a positive response over the control, although no increase in yield was detected. In 2019, 11 out of 60 treatment means across the same yield parameters displayed a decrease and subsequently reduced soybean grain yield. The degree of auxin symptoms varied between siteyears and did not consistently display compensatory effects. Overall, no findings led to the conclusion that exposure of soybean to sublethal doses of dicamba increased grain yield.

show abstract

“…The difference in severity of visible injury among site-years could potentially be a result of variable weather conditions from 2018 to 2019 (Table 2). The presence of soil moisture, irrigation events, or fluctuations in temperature all have the capacity to influence the activity of dicamba (Al-Khatib and Peterson 1999; Grantz et al 2020;Willett et al 2018). Auxin symptomology elicited by tank-contamination rates of dicamba appeared in newer, vegetative trifoliates, ultimately causing leaf cupping, stunting, stacking of nodes, and chlorosis (Table 1).…”

Section: Dicamba Tank-contamination Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction of contact herbicides and timing of dicamba exposure on soybean

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dicamba residues in sprayers are difficult to remove and may interact with subsequent herbicides including contact herbicides labeled for use in soybean. Without proper tank cleanout, applicators treating dicamba-resistant and non-dicamba-resistant crops are at risk of contaminating the spray solution with dicamba residue from previous applications. Experiments were conducted in Fayetteville, AR in 2018 and 2019 with the first evaluating consequences of dicamba tank contamination with contact herbicides and the second experiment addressing the impact of dicamba exposure on a glufosinate-resistant soybean cultivar relative to a contact herbicide application. Experiments for tank contamination and timing of dicamba exposure were designed as a three-factor- and a two-factor- randomized complete block with four replications, respectively, considering site-year as a fixed effect in each experiment. Dicamba at 0, 0.056, 0.56, and 5.6 g ae ha −1 was applied alone, with glufosinate, with acifluorfen, or with glufosinate plus acifluorfen to V3 soybean. Dicamba applied in combination with contact herbicides exacerbated visible auxin symptomology over dicamba alone at 21 and 28 days after treatment (DAT), while dicamba at 5.6 g ae ha −1 reduced soybean height. Injury and height reductions caused by dicamba mixtures with contact herbicides did not reduce grain yield. In the second experiment, dicamba was applied at 2.8 g ae ha −1 at VC, V1, V2, V3, and at 3, 7, and 10 days after a glufosinate application to V3 soybean (DATV3). Greater soybean injury was observed when dicamba exposure followed a glufosinate application than when dicamba preceded glufosinate or was applied in a mixture with glufosinate, with yield reductions resulting from 7 and 10 DATV3 dicamba applications. Dicamba exposure in the presence of contact herbicides resulted in increased auxin symptomology and can be intensified if soybean are exposed to dicamba following a contact herbicide application.

show abstract

Soybean response to dicamba exposure in furrow irrigation

Cited by 3 publications

References 28 publications

Residual herbicide concentrations in on‐farm water storage–tailwater recovery systems: Preliminary assessment

Residual herbicide concentrations in on‐farm water storage–tailwater recovery systems: Preliminary assessment

Does dicamba exposure elicit a hormetic response in sensitive soybean?

Interaction of contact herbicides and timing of dicamba exposure on soybean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About