Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T23:06:32.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean (Glycine max) and Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey M. Ellis  and
James L. Griffin
Jeffrey M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agctr.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted for a period of 2 yr to evaluate the response of soybean and cotton to simulated drift rates representing 12.5, 6.3, 3.2, 1.6, and 0.8% of the usage rates of 1,120 g ai/ha glyphosate (140, 70, 35, 18, and 9 g/ha, respectively) and 420 g ai/ha glufosinate (53, 26, 13, 7, and 4 g/ha, respectively). Early-postemergence applications were made to 2- to 3-trifoliate soybean and 2- to 3-leaf cotton, and late applications to soybean at first flower and cotton at early bloom. A mid-postemergence application was also made to cotton at pinhead square (first flower bud development). Soybean and cotton injury and height reductions occurred in most cases for only the two highest rates of the herbicides with variation noted between years. Soybean height was reduced by no more than 11%, regardless of herbicide rate or timing. On the basis of visual injury, soybean was more sensitive to glyphosate than to glufosinate when applied early in 1998, but sensitivity was equal for both the herbicides in 1999. When herbicides were applied late, soybean was more sensitive to glufosinate in the first year. Cotton was more sensitive to glufosinate 7 d after application in both years, regardless of timing, but by 28 d differences between herbicides were less apparent. Cotton maturity was not delayed by either herbicide, on the basis of days to first square or flower and nodes above white flower. Both crops were able to recover rapidly from herbicide injury, and yields were not affected negatively.

Keywords

Glyphosateglufosinatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DPL 33B’, ‘Paymaster 1560B’, ‘Stoneville 474’, ‘Suregrow 125’, ‘Suregrow 747’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 5959’, ‘Dekalb 5850’, ‘DPL 3588’, ‘Pioneer 9594’, ‘Terral 5893’Crop injuryherbicide driftoff-target movementDAT, days after treatmentNAWF, nodes above white flower
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 580 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 147–152.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13: 264–270.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Herbicide Application Management. Des Plaines, IL: Sandoz Crop Protection. 27 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Louisiana Summary, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Louisiana Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. 2382. pp. 8–13.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide. Louisiana Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. 1565. 63 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 740–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., and Goering, C. E. 1976. Spray drift and recovery as affected by spray thickener, nozzle type, and nozzle pressure. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19: 213–218.Google Scholar
Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Merkle, M. G. 1976. Spray recovery from nozzles designed to reduce drift. Weed Sci. 24: 361–365.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspective on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11: 189–198.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Webster, E. P. 1999a. Corn response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39: 1–2.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Webster, E. P. 1999b. Crop response to Roundup Ultra and Liberty simulated drift. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 256–257.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. E., Womac, A. R., and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns of four venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. Weed Technol. 13: 765–770.Google Scholar
Ghosheh, H. Z., Chandler, J. M., and Bierman, R. H. 1994. Impact of DPX-PE350 drift on corn and grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 24.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant adjuvants on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol. 9: 380–384.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1997. Droplet size of glyphosate spray mixtures. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 207.Google Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30: 311–315.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994a. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8: 17–22.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994b. Weed control with non-selective herbicides in soybean (Glycine max) stale seedbed culture. Weed Technol. 8: 159–164.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Green, J. D. 1995. Herbicide drift—a growing concern in Kentucky. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 204.Google Scholar
Maybank, J., Yoshida, K., and Grover, R. 1978. Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. J. 28: 1009–1014.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Womac, A. R. 1997. Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 639–643.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 3: 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5: 493–498.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40: 106–109.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4: 215–231.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Richard, E. P., and Hurst, H. R. 1982. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa). II. Arsenic residues in foliage and grain and relationships between arsenic residues, rice toxicity symptoms, and yields. Weed Sci. 30: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhammer, J. D., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Sobotka, F. E. 1989. Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J. 81: 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1993. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. In The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Regina, SK: Agric. Canada. pp. 29–52.Google Scholar