Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T05:54:23.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Dicamba Persistence among Various Agricultural Hose Types and Cleanout Procedures Using Soybean (Glycine max) as a Bio-Indicator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2017

Gary T. Cundiff ,
Daniel B. Reynolds  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Gary T. Cundiff
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, and Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, MS 39762
Daniel B. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, and Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, MS 39762
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: dreynolds@pss.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Synthetic rubbers, synthetic plastic polymers (polyvinyl chlorides [PVC]), polyurethane blends, and polyethylene blends make up modern-day agricultural spray hoses. The objective of this study was to determine whether agricultural hose types would differ with respect to 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (dicamba) sequestration. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate the sequestration potential of dicamba within five agricultural hose types when cleaned with different cleanout procedures. Rinsate solutions were applied to soybean, which was used as a bio-indicator to test for cleanout efficiency. Differences among hose types and cleanout procedures exist with observations including soybean injury, height reduction, dry matter, yield, and part per million by volume (ppmv) analyte retained. The makeup of PVC polyurethane-blend and synthetic rubber–blend hoses increased retention of dicamba analyte when compared with the polyethylene blend hose. No differences were observed after the addition of ammonia to the cleanout solution when compared with water alone. Differences in a hose type’s ability to sequester the dicamba analyte may have more to do with the hose’s internal chemical composition, manufacturing process, and composition breakdown. Scanning electron microscopy revealed imperfections in new PVC polyurethane and synthetic rubber hoses that eventually lead to inner wall depletion of these hose types. This is in contrast to what was found in the polyethylene-blend hose type, in which the inner wall is smooth and free of imperfections.

Keywords

dicambasoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Contaminationdriftinteractionplant growth–regulating herbicides (PGR)sequestrationtank contaminationvolitization.
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 305 - 316
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Timothy L. Grey, University of Georgia

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J l 96:750–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. Pages 406–408 in Wisconsin Crop Management Conference: 2004 Proceedings Papers. University of Wisconsin–MadisonGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2016) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: 2013Google Scholar
Johnson, WG, Hallett, SG, Legleiter, TR, Whitford, F, Weller, SC, Bordelon, BP, Lerner, BR (2012) 2,4-D and Dicamba-Tolerant Crops—Some Facts to Consider. Purdue Extension. ID-453-W. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Kelley, KB, Riechers, DE (2003) Gene expression analysis of auxinic herbicide injury in soybeans. Abstr Weed Sci SocAm 43:105 Google Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. II. Practical application to quantify volatility. Weed Technol 18:1135–1142 Google Scholar
Steckel, L, Chism, C, Thompson, A (2005) Cleaning Plant Growth Regulator (PGR) Herbicides Out of Field Sprayers. University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service W071. 3 pGoogle Scholar
University of Illinois Extension Service (Bretthauer S) (2006) Illinois Pesticide Review. Pesticide Safety Education Program September newsletter. http://web.extension.illinois.edu/ipr/i4145_829.html#57042. Accessed: 2016Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar