Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:15:02.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Droplet Size and Density on Phytotoxicity of Three Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Raj Prasad  and
Beresford L. Cadogan
Raj Prasad
Affiliation:
506 Burnside Rd., Victoria, BC and For. Pest Manage. Inst., P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Beresford L. Cadogan
Affiliation:
506 Burnside Rd., Victoria, BC and For. Pest Manage. Inst., P.O. Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of droplet size and numerical deposit density on herbicide efficacy differed among investigations that relied on commercial nozzles to produce droplets strictly within small, medium, or large sizes. A droplet generator capable of producing uniform and homogeneous droplets was therefore used in a greenhouse experiment. Four droplet size classes (150, 350, 450, and 650 μm) using glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr on red alder, aspen, and white birch were studied. Herbicides applied in small (150 to 450-μm) droplets were more phytotoxic than large (660-μm) ones because of their greater numerical coverage and translocation. Leaf age, weed species, herbicide type, and mixture of droplet sizes were not critical in modifying the effects of droplet behavior; however, the concentrations of herbicide used had a positive effect. When the herbicides were applied at high concentrations, the influence of droplet size was nullified. These findings may help reduce the cost of application and the chemical burden in a forest environment.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinehexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)dionetriclopyr, [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acidaspen, Populus tremuloides Michx. ♯ POPTMred alder, Alnus rubra Bong. ♯ ALURBwhite birch, Betula papyrifera Marsh. ♯ BETPYGlyphosatehexazinonetriclopyrAlnus rubraBetula papyriferaPicea glaucaPopulus tremuloidesALURBBETPYPIEGAPOPTM
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 415 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variation in drop make-up on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.Google Scholar
2. Ayres, P. and Merritt, C. R. 1978. Field experiments with controlled drop application of herbicides for control of dicotyledon weeds. Weed Res. 18:209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ayres, P., Taylor, W. A., and Cottrell, E. G. 1982. The influence of cereal canopy and application method in spray deposition and biological activity of a herbicide for broad-leaved weed control. Crop Prot 3:24–25.Google Scholar
4. Baker, E. A., Hunt, G. M., and Stevens, P. J. 1983. Study of plant cuticle and spray droplet interactions: a fresh approach. Pestic. Sci. 14:645–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Barry, J. W. 1985. Drift predictions of three herbicide tank mixes. U.S. Dep. Agric.—For. Serv., Davis, CA, Publ. 85:1–14.Google Scholar
6. Barzee, M. A. and Stroube, E. W. 1972. Low volume application of pre-emergence herbicide. Weed Sci. 20:176–180.Google Scholar
7. Behrens, R. 1957. Influence of various components on the effectiveness of 2,4,5-T sprays. Weeds 5:183–196.Google Scholar
8. Bode, L. E. 1984. Downwind drift and deposits by ground applications. Proc. Pestic. Drift Manage. Symp., S. Dak. Univ. 1:49–52.Google Scholar
9. Brady, H. A. 1972. Drop size affects absorption of 2,4,5-T by six hardwood species. Proc. 25th South. Weed Sci. Soc. 1:282–286.Google Scholar
10. Brunskill, R. T. 1956. Physical factors affecting the retention of droplets on leaf surface. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 2:593–603.Google Scholar
11. Cadogan, B. L., Zylstra, B. F., Nystrom, C., Pollock, L. B., and Ebling, P. M. 1986. Spray deposit and drop size spectra from a high wing monoplane fitted with rotary atomizers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 29:402–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Douglas, G. 1986. The influence of size of spray droplets on the herbicidal activity of diquat and paraquat Weed Res. 8:205–212.Google Scholar
13. Ennis, W. B. and Williamson, R. E. 1963. The influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low-volume herbicide sprays. Weeds 11:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Fischer, C. E. and Young, D. W. 1950. The effect of herbicide droplet size on the control of mesquite when applied by airplane equipment Proc. North Cent Weed Control Conf. 1:84–86.Google Scholar
15. Gebhardt, M. R., Webber, C. L., and Bouse, L. F. 1986. Comparison of a rotary atomizer to a fan nozzle for herbicide application. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28:382–385.Google Scholar
16. Gottrup, O., Sullivan, P. A., Shraa, K. J., and Vanden-Born, W. H. 1976. Uptake, translocation, selectivity and metabolism of glyphosate in Canada thistle and leafy spurge. Weed Res. 16:197–201.Google Scholar
17. Grover, R., Schewchuk, S. R., Cessna, A. J., Smith, A. E., and Hunter, J. H. 1983. Fate of 2,4-D iso-octyl ester after application to a wheat field. J. Environ. Qual. 14:203–210.Google Scholar
18. Lake, J. R. 1977. The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic. Sci. 8:515–520.Google Scholar
19. Lake, J. R. and Marchant, J. A. 1983. The use of dimension analysis in a study of drop retention on barley. Pestic. Sci. 14:638–644.Google Scholar
20. Lake, J. R. and Taylor, W. A. 1983. Effect of the form of a deposit on the activity of barban applied to Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 14:13–18.Google Scholar
21. Maybank, J. 1981. An assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of herbicidal applications. Sask. Res. Council Publ., P. 799–2-D. Proc. Austr. Weed Conf. Queensland: 1–10.Google Scholar
22. McKinlay, K. S., Ashford, R., and Ford, R. J. 1974. Effects of drop size, spray volume and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci. 22:31–34.Google Scholar
23. McKinlay, K. S., Brandt, S. A., Morse, P., and Ashford, R. 1972. Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:450–452.Google Scholar
24. Merritt, C. R. 1980. The influence of application variables on the biological performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Proc. Symp. Spraying Systems, Agric. Res. Council, WRO Oxford: 36–43.Google Scholar
25. Merritt, C. R. 1982. The influence of form of deposit on the phytotoxicity of difenzoquat applied as individual drops to Avena fatua . Ann. Appl. Biol. 101:517–525.Google Scholar
26. Merritt, C. R. 1982. The influence of form of deposit on the phytotoxicity of MCPA, paraquat and glyphosate applied as individual drops. Ann. Appl. Biol. 101:527–532.Google Scholar
27. Merritt, C. R. 1977. Glasshouse trials with controlled drop application of some foliage-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 17:241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Merritt, C. R. and Taylor, W. A. 1978. Effects of volume rate and drop size on the retention of an aqueous solution to Avena fatua L. Symp. Contr. Drop Applic., Br. Crop Prot. Counc.: p. 59–63.Google Scholar
29. Mullison, W. R. 1953. The effect of droplet size upon herbicidal effectiveness of plant growth regulators. Down Earth 9:11–13.Google Scholar
30. Prasad, R. 1985. Droplet size and efficacy of some forest herbicides. Res. Rep., Expert Committee on Weeds, Eastern Canada: p. 616.Google Scholar
31. Rayner, A. C. and Haliburton, W. 1955. Rotary device for producing a stream of uniform drops. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 26:1124–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Rogers, R. B. and Kirkland, K. 1985. Billion drop technology projectyear 1. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 85:1631.Google Scholar
33. Snedecor, G. W. 1957. Statistical Methods. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 534 p.Google Scholar
34. Smith, M. H. 1946. Quantitative aspects of aqueous spray applications of 2,4-D acid for herbicidal purposes. Bot. Gaz. 107:546–551.Google Scholar
35. Sprankle, P., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1975. Absorption, action and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 23:235–240.Google Scholar
36. Sundaram, K.M.S. and Prasad, R. 1984. Research on forest herbicides in Canada: Problems, progress and status. Chow, P.N.P. and Grant, C., ed. Proc. XI Workshop “Chem. Biochem. Herbicides.” p. 42–52. Agric. Canada, Brandon, Manitoba.Google Scholar
37. Tu, Y. G., Lin, Z. M., and Zhang, J. Y. 1986. The effect of leaf shape on the deposition of spray droplets on rice. Crop Prot 5:3–7.Google Scholar
38. Wilson, B. J. and Taylor, W. A. 1977. Field trials with controlled drop application of barban and difenzoquat for the control of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in spring barley. Weed Res. 18:215–221.Google Scholar
39. Wyrill, J. B. and Burnside, O. C. 1976. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of glyphosate in common milkweed and hemp dogbane. Weed Sci. 24:557–566.Google Scholar