Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:54:18.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulated herbicide spray retention on floating aquatic plants as affected by carrier volume and adjuvant type

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2021

Benjamin P. Sperry Open the ORCID record for Benjamin P. Sperry [Opens in a new window] ,
Christopher R. Mudge  and
Kurt D. Getsinger
Benjamin P. Sperry*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant Scientist, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Christopher R. Mudge
Affiliation:
Research Biologist, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Kurt D. Getsinger
Affiliation:
Research Biologist, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Benjamin P. Sperry, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32653. Email: bpsperry@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Foliar delivery of herbicides is a common means for plant management in aquatic environments. Though this technique is decades old, little is known about vegetative spray retention relative to this application method. A more complete understanding of maximizing herbicide retention could lead to improved plant management while simultaneously decreasing pesticide load in aquatic environments. Therefore outdoor mesocosm experiments were conducted in 2020 to evaluate the effect of adjuvant type on foliar spray retention in waterhyacinth [Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms]. Additionally, the effect of carrier volume on spray retention in waterhyacinth, waterlettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.), and giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell) was documented. Spray deposition did not differ among the nine adjuvants tested; however, spray retention was reduced 6% to 11% when an adjuvant was excluded from the spray solution. The effect of carrier volume on spray retention in waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and giant salvinia was also investigated. Decreases in spray retention were most sensitive to increased carrier volume in waterhyacinth, followed by giant salvinia and waterlettuce. Among species, spray retention potential, as determined by intercept estimates, was greatest in waterlettuce and giant salvinia regardless of carrier volume. Asymptotes estimates for waterhyacinth, waterlettuce, and giant salvinia were 33%, 46%, and 79% spray retention, respectively. In other words, spray retention was the lowest and remained relatively constant at these values for the high carrier volumes tested (935 and 1,870 L ha−1), which were likely due to the presence of pubescence on leaves and flatter leaf architecture represented by waterlettuce and giant salvinia compared to the glabrous vertical leaves of waterhyacinth. Future research will evaluate these concepts under field conditions.

Keywords

giant salvinia, Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchellwaterhyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solmswaterlettuce, Pistia stratiotes L.Application technologyaquatic plant managementfluorometrytracer dye
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 56 - 63
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America.
Copyright
© U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center, 2021

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: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Barber, JAS, Parkin, CS (2003) Fluorescent tracer technique for measuring the quantity of pesticide deposited to soil following spray applications. Crop Protect 22:15–21 10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00061-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Software 67:1–48 Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 10.1614/WT-D-10-00047.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruns, DE, Nalewaja, JD (1998) Spray retention is affected by spray parameters, species, and adjuvants. Pages 107–119 in Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Volume 18. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International Google Scholar
Cary, PR, Weerts, PG (1984) Growth of Salvinia molesta as affected by water temperature and nutrition. II. Nitrogen-phosphorus interactions and effect of pH. Aquat Bot 19:171–182 10.1016/0304-3770(84)90015-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, TD, Spencer, NR (1981) The phenology and growth of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) in a eutrophic north-Central Florida lake. Aquat Bot 10:1–32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewald, LB, Lounibos, LP (1990) Seasonal growth of Pistia stratiotes L. in south Florida. Aquat Bot 36:263–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, GJ, Kempthorne, DM, Mayo, LC, Forster, WA, Zabkiewicz, JA, McCue, SW, Belward, JA, Turner, IW, Hanan, J (2014) Towards a model of spray-canopy interactions: Interception, shatter, bounce and retention of droplets on horizontal leaves. Ecol Modell 290:94–101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[DPIRDAF] Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development’s Agriculture and Food (2020) Water hyacinth: declared pest. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/declared-plant/water-hyacinth-declared-pest. Accessed: October 15, 2020Google Scholar
Everts, CJ, Kanwar, RS (1994) Evaluation of rhodamine WT as an adsorbed tracer in an agricultural soil. J Hydrol 153:53–70 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90186-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, PCC, Sammons, TCRD, Ryerse, JS (2003) Droplet size affects glyphosate retention, absorption, and translocation in corn. Weed Sci 51:443–448 10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0443:DSAGRA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuerstein, DL, Selleck, RE (1963) Fluorescent tracers for dispersion measurements. Proc Am Soc Civil Eng 89:1–21 Google Scholar
[FFWCC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2019) Annual Report of Pollutant Discharges to the Surface Waters of the State from the Application of Pesticides. NPDES Generic Permit Coverage Number FLG510039-IWPG. 52 pGoogle Scholar
Foster, HC, Sperry, BP, Reynolds, DB, Kruger, GR, Claussen, S (2018) Reducing herbicide particle drift: effect of hooded sprayer and spray quality. Weed Technol 32:714–721 10.1017/wet.2018.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, AM, Haller, WT (1992) Improving herbicide efficacy in spring-fed tidal canals by timing and application methods. J Aquat Plant Manage 30:58–62 Google Scholar
Fox, AM, Haller, WT, Getsinger, KD (1991a) Characterization of water exchange in hydrilla-infested tidal canals of the Crystal River, Florida. Misc Paper A-91-2. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
Fox, AM, Haller, WT, Getsinger, KD (1993) Correlation of endothall and fluorescent dye concentrations following concurrent application to tidal canals. Pestic Sci 37:99–106 10.1002/ps.2780370115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, AM, Haller, WT, Getsinger, KD, Petty, DG (2002) Dissipation of triclopyr herbicide applied in Lake Minnetonka, MN concurrently with Rhodamine WT dye. Pest Manage Sci 58:677–686 10.1002/ps.507CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, AM, Haller, WT, Shilling, DG (1991b) Correlation of fluridone and dye concentrations in water following concurrent application. Pestic Sci 31:25–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furmidge, CGL (1962) Physico-chemical studies on agricultural sprays. IV. The retention of spray liquid on leaf surfaces. J Sci Food Agric 13:127–140 10.1002/jsfa.2740130213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, RE, Steele, KD, Forster, WA (2005) Characterising plant surfaces for spray adhesion and retention. N Z Plant Protect 58:179–183 Google Scholar
Getsinger, KD, Skogerboe, JG, Madsen, JD, Wersal, RM, Nawrocki, JJ, Richardson, RJ, Sternberg, MR (2013) Selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed in Noxon Rapids Reservoir, Montana: aquatic herbicide evaluations 2009–2010. ERDC/EL TR-13-5. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettys, LA, Haller, WT, Petty, DG, eds (2020) Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants: A Best Management Practices Handbook. 4th ed. Marietta, GA: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation Google Scholar
Gossen, BD, Peng, G, Wolf, TM, McDonald, MR (2008) Improving spray retention to enhance the efficacy of foliar-applied disease- and pest-management products in field and row crops. Can J Plant Pathol 30:505–516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haller, WT, Stocker, RK (2003) Toxicity of 19 adjuvants to juvenile Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill subfish). Environ Toxicol Chem 22:615–619 10.1002/etc.5620220321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, KLS, Forno, IW, Kassulke, RC, Sands, DPA (1984) Biological control of water lettuce. J Aquat Plant Manage 22:101–102 Google Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Foy, CL (1983) Efficacy of three postemergence grass herbicides for soybeans. Weed Sci 31:557–561 10.1017/S0043174500069563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, JL (2000) Adjuvants—terminology, classification, and chemistry. Weed Technol 14:773–784 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, FD, Falk, RH (1990) Herbicide deposition on leaf surfaces. Weed Sci 38:280–288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, PH, Butler Ellis, MC, Webb, DA, Western, NM, Tuck, CR, Hayes, AL, Miller, PCH (2000) Effects of some agricultural tank-mix adjuvants on the deposition efficiency of aqueous sprays on foliage. Crop Protect 19:27–37 10.1016/S0261-2194(99)00079-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horst, J, Mapes, K (2000) Giant salvinia: the green monster. LSU AgCenter Research and Extension. https://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/resources/factsheets/giantsalvinia.htm. Accessed: September 25, 2020Google Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F, Westfall, P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J 50:346–363 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, DL, Vidrine, PR, Griffin, JL, Reynolds, DB (1996) Influence of adjuvants on efficacy of clethodim. Weed Technol 10:738–743 10.1017/S0890037X00040744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journaux, L, Simon, JC, Destain, MF, Cointault, F, Miteran, J, Piron, A (2011) Plant leaf roughness analysis by texture classification with generalized Fourier descriptors in a dimensionality reduction context. Precision Agric 12:345–360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, JC (1985) Benefits of maintenance control of waterhyacinth. Aquatics 7:11–13 Google Scholar
Julien, MH, Center, TD, Tipping, PW (2002) Floating fern (Salvinia). Pages 17–32 in Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States, eds. Van Driesche, RH, Blossey, B, Hoddle, M, Lyon, S, Reardon, R. FHTET-2002-04. Morgantown, WV: USDA Forest Service Google Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Protect 13:163–178 10.1016/0261-2194(94)90075-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langeland, KA, Fox, AM, Laroche, FB, Martin, BB, Martin, DF, Norris, CD, Wang, C (1994) Diquat distribution in water after application to submersed weeds. J Am Water Res Assoc 30:93–97 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1994.tb03276.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R (2020) EMMEANS: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.4.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans. Accessed: October 10, 2020Google Scholar
Massinon, M, Boukhalfa, H, Lebeau, F (2014) The effect of surface orientation on spray retention. Precision Agric 15:241–254 10.1007/s11119-013-9345-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, DS, Tur, NM (1975) The rate of growth of Salvinia molesta (S. auriculata Auct.) in laboratory and natural conditions. J Appl Ecol 12:213–225 10.2307/2401730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TJ, Weller, SC, Ashton, FM (2002) Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley. 688 p Google Scholar
Mudge, CR, Perret, AJ, Winslow, JR (2016) Evaluation of foliar herbicide and surfactant combinations for control of giant salvinia at three application timings. J Aquat Plant Manage 54:32–36 Google Scholar
Mudge, CR, Sartain, BT (2018) Influence of winter on herbicide efficacy for control of giant salvinia (Salvinia molesta). J Aquat Plant Manage 56:68–71 Google Scholar
Mudge, CR, Sperry, BP, Getsinger, KP (2021) Influence of plant density for the retention of spray solution applied to floating aquatic species. Pest Manage Sci 77:4447–4452 10.1002/ps.6479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, LS (2014) Giant and common salvinia. Pages 79–84 in Biology and Control of Aquatic Plants: A Best Management Practices Handbook, eds. Gettys, LA, Haller, WT, Petty, DG. 3rd ed. Marietta, GA: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation Google Scholar
Nelson, LS, Glomski, LM, Gladwin, DN (2007) Effect of glyphosate rate and spray volume on control of giant salvinia. J Aquat Plant Manage 45:58–61 Google Scholar
Owens, CS, Smart, RM, Honnell, DR, Dick, GO (2005) Effects of pH on growth of Salvinia molesta Mitchell. J Aquat Plant Manage 43:34–38 Google Scholar
Penfound, WT, Earle, TT (1948) The biology of the water hyacinth. Ecol Monogr 18(4):447–472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S, Sarkar, D, R Core Team (2019) NLME: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-140. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package-nlme. Accessed: October 14, 2020Google Scholar
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 16 pGoogle Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Software 12:1–22 Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, FC, Penner, D, Burow, RF, Thomas, B (1993) Study of the enhancement of herbicide activity and rainfastness by an organosilicone adjuvant utilizing radiolabelled herbicide and adjuvant. Pestic Sci 37:121–125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roten, RL, Hewitt, AJ, Ledebuhr, M, Thistle, H, Connell, RJ, Wolf, TM, Sankar, S, Woodward, SJR (2013) Evaluation of spray deposition in potatoes using various spray delivery systems. N Z Plant Protect 66:317–323 Google Scholar
Salyani, M (1988) Droplet size effect on spray deposition efficiency of citrus leaves. Trans ASAE 31:1680–1684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, RC, Shaw, DR, O’Neal, WB, Klingaman, TD (1998) Spray adjuvant, formulation, and environmental effects on synergism from post-applied tank mixtures of SAN 582H with fluazifop-P, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 12:463–469 10.1017/S0890037X00044158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M, Mack, RE (1993) Effect of organosilicone-based adjuvants on herbicide efficacy. Pestic Sci 38:219–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, BP, Ferrell, JA (2021) Effect of carrier volume and application method on waterhyacinth response to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and diquat. Invas Plant Sci Manag 14(1)10.1017/inp.2021.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TeeJet Technologies (2014) Catalog 51A. 164 p. https://www.teejet.com/CMSImages/TEEJET/documents/catalogs/cat51a_us.pdf. Accessed: November 17, 2021Google Scholar
Thomas, PA, Room, PM (1986) Taxonomy and control of Salvinia molesta . Nature 320:581–584 10.1038/320581a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, EG, Getsinger, KD, Netherland, MD (1994) Correlation of triclopyr and rhodamine WT dissipation in the Pend Oreille River. J Aquat Plant Manage 32:39–40 Google Scholar
Turner, EG, Netherland, MD, Getsinger, KD (1991) Submersed plants and algae as factors in the loss of rhodamine WT dye. J Aquat Plant Manage 29:113–115 Google Scholar
[UF] University of Florida (2018) Background on the aquatic herbicides registered for use in Florida. https://plants-archive.ifas.ufl.edu/manage/control-methods/chemical-control/details-about-the-aquatic-herbicides-used-in-florida/. Accessed: February 4, 2021Google Scholar
[UF] University of Florida (2021) Flumioxazin considerations. https://plants-archive.ifas.ufl.edu/manage/developing-management-plans/chemical-control-considerations/flumioxazin-considerations/. Accessed: February 4, 2021Google Scholar
Van, TK, Vandiver, VV, Conant, RD (1986) Effect of herbicide rate and carrier volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. J Aquat Plant Manage 24:66–69 Google Scholar
Weldon, LW, Blackburn, RD (1966) Waterlettuce—nature, problem and control. Weeds 14:5–9 Google Scholar
Willard, TR, Shilling, DG, Haller, WT, Langeland, KA (1998) Physico-chemical factors influencing the control of torpedograss with glyphosate. J Aquat Plant Manage 36:11–15 Google Scholar
Wirth, W, Storp, S, Jacobsen, W (1991) Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions. Pestic Sci 33:411–420 10.1002/ps.2780330403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabkiewicz, JA (2007) Spray formulation efficacy: holistic and futuristic perspectives. Crop Protect 26:312–319 10.1016/j.cropro.2005.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar