DOCSLIB.ORG

Herbicide Efficacy, Leaf Structure, and Spray Droplet Contact Angle Among

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Herbicide Efficacy, Leaf Structure, and Spray Droplet Contact Angle Among Weed Science, 49:628±634. 2001 Herbicide ef®cacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and small¯ower morningglory Demosthenis Chachalis Greenhouse and laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate responses of ivyleaf Southern Weed Science Research Unit, USDA-ARS, morningglory, pitted morningglory, palmleaf morningglory, and small¯ower mor- P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776 ningglory to several herbicides in relation to leaf structure, epicuticular wax, and Current Address: Greek National Agricultural spray droplet behavior. Two- to four-leaf stage plants of each species were highly Research Foundation (NAGREF), Plant Protection susceptible to aci¯uorfen, bentazon, bromoxynil, glufosinate, and glyphosate. How- Institute of Volos, P.O. Box 303, Volos 380 01, ever, at the ®ve- to eight-leaf stage, these species were less susceptible, and control Greece was herbicide speci®c. Spray droplets of these ®ve herbicides had a higher contact angle on ivyleaf morningglory than the other three species with a few exceptions. Krishna N. Reddy Stomata and glands were present on both adaxial and abaxial leaf surfaces of all Corresponding author. Southern Weed Science species, and palmleaf morningglory and small¯ower morningglory had more of these Research Unit, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 350, than did the other two species. Trichomes were present on all species except palmleaf Stoneville, MS 38776; [email protected] morningglory. Epicuticular wax mass was highest in ivyleaf morningglory (57 mg cm22) and lowest in small¯ower morningglory (14 mgcm22). Wax consisted of C. Dennis Elmore homologous short-chain (, C18) or long-chain (. C20) hydrocarbons, alcohols, ac- Application and Production Technology Research ids, and triterpenes. Small¯ower morningglory waxes lacked short-chain length com- Unit, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 36, Stoneville, MS ponents. Triterpenes were absent in palmleaf morningglory and small¯ower mor- 38776 ningglory epicuticular waxes. Untriacontane (C31 hydrocarbon) and tridecanol (C30 alcohol) were common major long-chain components in waxes of all four species. Marcus L. Steele Heptadecane (C17 hydrocarbon) and octanoic acid (C18) were common major short- Delta State University, Department of Physical chain length wax components in pitted, ivyleaf, and palmleaf morningglory. In spite Sciences, P.O. Box 3255, Cleveland, MS 38733 of some differences in leaf surface structures, wax mass, and wax components among the four species, there was no clear relationship between these parameters and her- bicide ef®cacy. Nomenclature: Aci¯uorfen; bentazon; bromoxynil; glufosinate; glyphosate; ivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHE; palmleaf morningglory, Ipomoea wrightii Gray IPOWR; pitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLA; small¯ower morningglory, Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb. IAQTA. Key words: Spray droplet spread area. Ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, palmleaf mor- chomes (Hess 1985; Hull et al. 1982; McWhorter 1985; ningglory, and small¯ower morningglory are listed among Wanamarta and Penner 1989). Herbicide absorption is fa- the 10 most common or troublesome weeds in the southern cilitated with either cuticular or stomatal in®ltration, but no United States (Dowler 1998). These species cause interfer- conclusive evidence indicates the comparative level of each ence with crops, increased lodging, reduced ef®ciency of me- route of penetration (Hess 1985; Wanamarta and Penner chanical harvest, and reduced yields (Barker et al. 1984). 1989). These species are among the ®ve weeds that cause 66% of The epicuticular wax appears to be an effective barrier to all cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) weed losses (Elmore et herbicide absorption. Removal of epicuticular wax with al. 1990). Full-season interference of annual Ipomoea species chloroform greatly increased glyphosate absorption in Coca reduced yields of soybean (Glycine max L.) up to 70% (East- [Erythroxylum coca var. coca (Lam.)] compared to plants with man and Coble 1977; Oliver et al. 1976). leaf epicuticular wax (Ferreira and Reddy 2000). Epicutic- Leaf morphology varies considerably among morningglo- ular leaf wax commonly occurs as a wax crystal deposition ry species. It is generally known that ivyleaf morningglory (Baker 1982; Hess 1985). Leaf wax contains primarily a has extensive trichomes on both leaf and stem, whereas variety of short- and long-chain hydrocarbons, alcohols, ac- palmleaf morningglory is smooth (Elmore et al. 1990). ids, esters, aldehydes, and triterpenes (Baker 1982). Wax is However, the effect of leaf surface characteristics of these considered to be largely nonpolar and therefore hydropho- species on herbicide ef®cacy has not been investigated. bic, but variation exists among species. Hydrocarbons are Leaf surface structures affect the wetting and penetration considered highly hydrophobic, whereas alcohols and acids behavior of foliar-applied herbicides (Hess 1985; Hull et al. are relatively hydrophilic (Baker 1982). Information is lack- 1982; McWhorter 1985; Wanamarta and Penner 1989). ing on the characterization of epicuticular wax in these spe- These leaf surface characteristics include the cuticle (epicu- cies. The objective of this research was to determine the ticular wax, cutin, and pectin), leaf age and development, responses of ivyleaf, pitted, palmleaf, and small¯ower mor- leaf angle and position, and numbers of stomata and tri- ningglory to several herbicides in relation to leaf morphol- 628 x Weed Science 49, September±October 2001 ogy, epicuticular wax, and herbicide spray droplet charac- iance (ANOVA), and means were separated using Fisher's teristics. protected LSD test at P 5 0.05. Materials and Methods Spray Droplet Contact Angle and Spread Area Contact angle of herbicide spray droplets on leaves was General Greenhouse Procedures measured on the adaxial surface of the second to fourth fully Seeds were purchased locally from a commercial source1 expanded leaf from the apical meristem as described by and were stored at 4 C prior to scari®cation with HCl to Chachalis et al. (2001). The leaves were selected daily at promote germination. Scari®ed seeds were placed in rect- random just before measurement from ®ve- to eight-leaf angular 6 by 7-cm containers ®lled with a mixture of soil stage plants. The contact angles of both sides of a 1-ml droplet on a leaf surface were measured approximately 1 min (Bosket sandy loam, ®ne-loamy, mixed, thermic Mollic Ha- 4 pludalfs) and potting soil2 (1 : 1 by volume). Seedlings were after droplet application using a goniometer. Each value transplanted (one plant per pot) approximately 1 wk after was the mean of the contact angles of two sides of the drop- germination to 10-cm-diam pots containing the soil mixture let. For spread area measurements, the surface area of a 1- above. Plants were grown in a greenhouse at 32/24 C (6 3 ml droplet on the leaf surface was measured approximately 5 min after the droplet application. Spread area was calcu- C) day/night temperature. Natural light was supplemented 2 with sodium vapor lamps to provide a 14-h day length to lated using the formula pr , where r was the radius of the prevent ¯owering. The soil mixture was surface irrigated as droplet. Preliminary trials showed that the 1-ml droplet on needed. Small¯ower morningglory was transplanted 10 d the leaf surface was rarely circular. Therefore, the radius was before the other three species to synchronize plant size and estimated as the mean of horizontal and vertical dimensions herbicide application. of the droplet. In some cases, spread was so great that the boundaries of the droplet were not clearly visible, and mea- surements were not possible. Contact angle and spread area Herbicide Ef®cacy measurements were replicated ®ve times, and the experiment was repeated. Data were subjected to ANOVA, and means Herbicide rates were selected to represent the manufac- were separated using Fisher's Protected LSD test at P 5 turers suggested use (13) rates (Anonymous 2000). Com- 0.05. mercial formulations of the following herbicides were used: aci¯uorfen, bentazon, bromoxynil, glufosinate, and gly- phosate. A nonionic surfactant (X-77)3 at 0.25% (v/v) was Leaf and Stem Surface Structures added to all herbicide spray solutions for uniformity. Spray Five to eight leaves and stem were randomly sampled solutions were applied using an indoor spray chamber from ®ve- to eight-leaf stage ®eld-grown plants. Two leaf equipped with an air-pressurized system equipped with segments (approximately 20 mm2) from the center of the 8002E nozzles at a volume of 190 L ha21 at 140 kPa. Her- leaf and stem segments (1 cm) were ®xed for 12 h in 4% bicides were selected to represent those used in transgenic glutaraldehyde and rinsed three times with distilled water (bromoxynil, glufosinate, and glyphosate) and in nontrans- before dehydration in a graded ethanol series. Samples were genic (aci¯uorfen and bentazon) corn (Zea mays L.), cotton, critical point-dried5 and mounted on aluminum stubs. Sam- and soybean. The rates were as follows: aci¯uorfen 0.56 kg ples were gold-coated using a sputter coater6 and examined ai ha21, bentazon 1.1 kg ai ha21, bromoxynil 0.56 kg ai using a scanning electron microscope.7 Leaf and stem sur- ha21, glufosinate 0.41 kg ai ha21, and glyphosate 1.1 kg ai faces were photographed at the same magni®cation for all ha21. Herbicides were applied to plants at two- to four-leaf species, and individual structures were identi®ed and count- stage and ®ve- to eight-leaf stage. Bamboo sticks supported ed. From each sample, two photographs were examined, and vining plants of ®ve- to eight-leaf stage. Ivyleaf morningglo- the study was replicated four times. The numbers of sto- ry, pitted morningglory, and palmleaf morningglory plants mata, glands, and trichomes were counted as described pre- reached two- to four-leaf and ®ve- to eight-leaf stages ap- viously (Chachalis et al. 2001; Elmore and Paul 1998). proximately 10 and 15 d after transplanting, respectively. Small¯ower morningglory plants reached two- to four-leaf and ®ve- to eight-leaf stages within 20 and 25 d after trans- Wax Extraction and Analysis planting, respectively.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • View Science Comments I
    March 11, 2014 Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road, Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737- 1238 RE: Docket No. APHIS-2013-0042 Comments to USDA APHIS on Dow AgroSciences LLC; Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide Resistant Corn and Soybeans Center for Food Safety, Science Comments I By: Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst Introduction These comments submitted by Center for Food Safety are one of two sets of science comments from our organization. Legal comments are also being submitted. The references cited have been uploaded as supporting materials. The filenames for these documents match the citations in the text, and are all incorporated as (e.g. Benbrook 2012). Full citations are included at the end. These comments supplement and incorporate by reference our earlier two rounds of comments on the draft Environmental Assessments for event DAS-68416-4 (Enlist soybeans) and event DAS-40278-9 (Enlist corn), as well as all the references submitted previously. The previous CFS science comments on the draft EAs have been resubmitted as Appendix B, and will be cited in the text as “CFS Science Soy”, “CFS Science Corn I”, and “CFS Science Corn II.” References to the Appendix of the EIS cite the Appendix number followed by a hyphen then the page number (e.g. 4-29). Only references that are new to these draft EIS comments are listed in the References section at the end. Executive Summary The growing unsustainability of U.S. agriculture U.S. agriculture is becoming progressively less sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Glufosinate (Ignite): a New Promising Postemergence Herbicide for Citrus
    Glirus Section Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100:58-61. 1987. GLUFOSINATE (IGNITE): A NEW PROMISING POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR CITRUS Megh Singh and D. P. H. Tucker ported that the pattern of plant responses to glufosinate University of Florida, IFAS and glyphosate was distinctly different. Glufosinate has li Citrus Research and Education Center mited translocation to rootstocks and rhizomes, etc. of per 700 Experiment Station Road ennial weeds as compared to glyphosate. Therefore, even Lake Alfred, FL 33850 tual regrowth from these plant parts will occur. Glufosinate may be a useful herbicide for weed control Additional index words. Basta, Buster, Conquest, Finale, in no-tillage systems, for orchards and vineyards, and for HOE-00661, HOE-39866, glufosinate-ammonium. general weed control in rangeland and non-cropland situ ations. Kapusta (6) reported effective control of several weed species using glufosinate in no-till fields. Glufosinate Abstract. Glufosinate [ammonium (3-amino-3-carboxypropyl) at 1.0 to 2.0 kg/ha provided effective control of several methyl phosphinate] is a non-selective postemergence her annual and perennial weeds in vineyards, citrus, and other bicide for the control of a broad spectrum of grasses and fruit orchards as well as in uncultivated areas (3). Lawson broad leaf weed species. It is known worldwide by various names such as Basta, Buster, Conquest, and Finale. Glufosi and Wiseman (9) reported satisfactory runner control in nate controls both annual and perennial weeds. The activity strawberries without the adverse effect on the growth and of glufosinate is somewhat slower than paraquat but dis yield of the crop.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction of 2,4-D Or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia Trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea Mays L.)
    fpls-08-01207 July 6, 2017 Time: 18:18 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 10 July 2017 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01207 Interaction of 2,4-D or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea mays L.) Zahoor A. Ganie and Amit J. Jhala* Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States Glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed is a problematic broadleaf weed in crops including maize and soybean in the Midwestern United States. Commercialization of crops with 2,4-D or dicamba and glufosinate resistance will allow post-emergence (POST) applications of these herbicides. Therefore, information is needed on how Edited by: 2,4-D/dicamba will interact with glufosinate in various rate combinations. The objectives Ilias Travlos, Agricultural University of Athens, of this study were to evaluate the interaction of glufosinate plus 2,4-D and/or dicamba for Greece control of GR giant ragweed, and to determine their effect on GR giant ragweed density, Reviewed by: biomass, maize injury, and yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 Milena S. Simic, Maize Research Institute Zemun Polje, in a field infested with GR giant ragweed in Nebraska, United States. The treatments − Serbia included POST applications of glufosinate (450 or 590 g ai ha 1), 2,4-D, or dicamba Yosra Menchari, at 280 or 560 g ae ha−1 applied alone and in tank-mixtures in glufosinate-resistant University of Jendouba, Tunisia maize. The results showed that dicamba applied alone resulted in 56 to 62% and *Correspondence: Amit J.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus Rudis)In Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean
    Weed Technology 2017 31:32–45 © Weed Science Society of America, 2017 Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis)in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean Amit J. Jhala, Lowell D. Sandell, Debalin Sarangi, Greg R. Kruger, and Steven Z. Knezevic* Glyphosate-resistant (GR) common waterhemp has become a significant problem weed in Nebraska and several Midwestern states. Several populations of GR common waterhemp are also resistant to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides, making them difficult to control with POST herbicides in GR soybean. Glufosinate-resistant (GFR) soybean is an alternate system for controlling GR common waterhemp, justifying the need for evaluating glufosinate-based herbicide programs. The objectives of this study were to compare POST-only herbicide programs (including one-pass and two-pass POST programs) with PRE followed by (fb) POST herbicide programs for control of GR common waterhemp in GFR soybean and their effect on common waterhemp density, biomass, and soybean yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 near Fremont, NE in a grower’s field infested with GR common waterhemp. Glufosinate applied early- and late-POST provided 76% control of GR common waterhemp at 14 d after late-POST (DALPOST) compared with 93% control with a PRE fb POST program when averaged across treatments. The PRE application of chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron plus flumioxazin, S-metolachlor plus fomesafen or metribuzin, saflufenacil plus dimethenamid-P fb glufosinate provided ≥95% control of common waterhemp throughout the ≤ −2 ≥ growing season, reduced common waterhemp− density to 2.0 plants m ,caused 94% biomass reduction, and led to 1,984 to 2,210 kg ha 1 soybean yield.
    [Show full text]
  • CFS Science Comments I
    April 27, 2012 Docket No. APHIS–2010–0103 Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 Comments to USDA APHIS on Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide-Tolerant DAS-40278-9 Corn, Zea mays, Event DAS- 40278-9 Center for Food Safety, Science Comments I – By Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst These comments submitted by Center for Food Safety are one of three sets of comments from our organization. Legal comments and a second set of science comments are also being submitted. The references cited have been uploaded as supporting materials. The filenames for these documents match the citations in the text, and are all incorporated as (e.g. Benbrook 2012). Full citations are included at the end of each section. THE IMPACT OF DAS-40278-9 ON CORN HERBICIDE USE Summary of herbicide use Dow’s DAS-402787-9 corn is genetically engineered for resistance to 2,4-D and quizalofop, and if deregulated would be marketed with additional resistance to glyphosate and likely glufosinate – fostering greater use of three to four herbicide classes. APHIS must assess DAS-42078-9 as Dow intends it to be used, as a weed control system. DAS-40278-9 eliminates the risk of crop injury that currently limits 2,4-D use on corn, and is thus reasonably projected to trigger an up to 30-fold increase in the use of this toxic herbicide on corn, equivalent to a four-fold increase in overall agricultural use of 2,4-D, by the end of the decade.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Amaranthus Palmeri) in 2,4-D , Glufosinate-, and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean
    Weed Technology Management of glyphosate-resistant Palmer – www.cambridge.org/wet amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in 2,4-D , glufosinate-, and glyphosate-resistant soybean 1 2 3 4 Research Article Chandrima Shyam , Parminder S. Chahal , Amit J. Jhala and Mithila Jugulam 1 2 Cite this article: Shyam C, Chahal PS, Jhala AJ, Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA; Postdoctoral Research 3 Jugulam M (2021) Management of glyphosate- Associate, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA; Associate resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA and palmeri) in 2,4-D–, glufosinate-, and 4Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 35:136–143. doi: 10.1017/wet.2020.91 Abstract Received: 7 May 2020 Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth is a problematic, annual broadleaf weed in Revised: 7 July 2020 soybean production fields in Nebraska and many other states in the United States. Soybean Accepted: 29 July 2020 TM First published online: 18 August 2020 resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate (Enlist E3 ) has been developed and was first grown commercially in 2019. The objectives of this research were to evaluate the effect of herbicide Associate Editor: programs applied PRE, PRE followed by (fb) late-POST (LPOST), and early-POST (EPOST) fb Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri LPOST on GR Palmer amaranth control, density, and biomass reduction, soybean injury, and ’ Nomenclature: yield. Field experiments were conducted near Carleton, NE, in 2018, and 2019 in a grower sfield 2,4-D chlorimuron-ethyl; cloransulam-methyl; infested with GR Palmer amaranth in 2,4-D–, glyphosate-, and glufosinate-resistant soybean.
    [Show full text]
  • Mixture of Glufosinate and Atrazine for Ryegrass (Lolium Multiflorum Lam
    Research article http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/refame Mixture of glufosinate and atrazine for ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) control and its effect on seeds’ quality Mezcla de glufosinato y atrazina para el control de raigrás (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) y su efecto en la calidad de semillas doi: 10.15446/rfnam.v72n1.69093 1 2 3 4 André da Rosa Ulguim , Dirceu Agostinetto , Leandro Vargas , Jessica Dias Gomes da Silva *, Theodoro Schneider5 and Bruno Moncks da Silva6 ABSTRACT Keywords: Ryegrass management has been difficult by the occurrence of resistant biotypes to several herbicides Antagonism with different action mechanisms. Since herbicides mixes and rotations are an important alternative Glutamine synthetase for resistant weed management, the objective of this work was to evaluate the interaction of the dose inhibitor of the herbicides glufosinate and atrazine on ryegrass control and its seeds’ quality exposed to their Lolium multiflorum association. For this study, three experiments were carried out using factorial design in field, laboratory, Photosystem II inhibitor and greenhouse conditions. Two factors (A and B) were evaluated in each experiment, where factor A and B represented the doses of glufosinate and atrazine, respectively. Ryegrass control was evaluated in field experiment, while germination percentage and Emergence Speed Index (ESI), were obtained in laboratory and greenhouse analyses, respectively. The data were submitted to variance analysis (P≤0.05) and the significant results were analyzed through response surface graphs. For ryegrass control data, the effect of the interaction was analyzed by the Colby method; glufosinate provides efficient ryegrass control, but its association with atrazine reduces the efficiency, being characterized as an antagonism between molecules.
    [Show full text]
  • Herbicide Programs for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Volunteer Corn in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean
    Weed Technology 2015 29:431–443 Herbicide Programs for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Volunteer Corn in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean Parminder S. Chahal and Amit J. Jhala* Glyphosate-resistant (GR) volunteer corn is a significant problem weed in soybean grown in rotation with corn in the midwestern United States and eastern Canada. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of glufosinate applied in single or sequential applications compared with acetyl- coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors applied alone or tank mixed with glufosinate for controlling GR volunteer corn in glufosinate-resistant soybean. At 15 d after early-POST (DAEP), ACCase inhibitors applied alone controlled volunteer corn 76 to 93% compared to 71 to 82% control when tank mixed with glufosinate. The expected volunteer corn control achieved by tank mixing ACCase inhibitors and glufosinate was greater than the glufosinate alone, indicating that glufosinate antagonized ACCase inhibitors at 15 DAEP, but not at later rating dates. ACCase inhibitors applied alone or tank mixed with glufosinate followed by late-POST glufosinate application controlled volunteer corn and green foxtail 97% at 30 DAEP. Single early-POST application of glufosinate controlled common waterhemp and volunteer corn 53 to 78%, and green foxtail 72 to 93% at 15 DAEP. Single as well as sequential glufosinate applications controlled green foxtail and volunteer corn greater than or equal to 90%, and common waterhemp greater than 85% at 75 d after late-POST (DALP). Contrast analysis suggested that glufosinate applied sequentially provided greater control of volunteer corn at 15 and 75 DALP compared to a single application. Similar results were reflected in volunteer corn density and biomass at 75 DALP.
    [Show full text]
  • Glufosinate Use in Arizona Prepared by Alfred Fournier, Peter C
    Agricultural Experiment Station 37860 West Smith-Enke Road Cooperative Extension Maricopa, Arizona 85138 (520) 568-2273 FAX: (520) 568-2556 Glufosinate Use in Arizona Prepared by Alfred Fournier, Peter C. Ellsworth, William McCloskey and Wayne Dixon Comments submitted by the Arizona Pest Management Center University of Arizona EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190 Who We Are The Arizona Pest Management Center is host to the University of Arizona’s expert IPM scientists including Ph.D. entomologists, weed scientists and plant pathologists with expertise in the strategic tactical use of pesticides within IPM programs that protect economic, environmental and human health interests of stakeholders and the society at large. Dr. Peter Ellsworth is Director of the APMC, State IPM and Pesticide Coordinator for Arizona and Professor of Entomology / Extension IPM Specialist with expertise in developing IPM systems in cotton and other crops and measuring implementation and impact of IPM and pest management practices. Dr. Al Fournier is Associate Director of the APMC / Adjunct Associate Specialist in Entomology, holds a Ph.D in Entomology, and has expertise in evaluating adoption and impact of integrated pest management and associated technologies. He serves as a Comment Coordinator for the Western IPM Center, representing stakeholders in the desert Southwest states. Mr. Wayne Dixon holds a B.S. in Computer Information Systems and develops tools and data used in IPM research, education and evaluation, including management of the APMC Pesticide Use Database. Dr. William McCloskey is an Associate Professor and Extension Specialist in Weed Science, with experience in field crops, including cotton, and tree fruit and nut crops.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Herbicide Groups
    List of herbicides Group Scientific name Trade name clodinafop (Topik®), cyhalofop (Barnstorm®), diclofop (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*, Hoegrass®), fenoxaprop (Cheetah® Gold* , Wildcat®), A Aryloxyphenoxypropionates fluazifop (Fusilade®, Fusion®*), haloxyfop (Verdict®), propaquizafop (Shogun®), quizalofop (Targa®) butroxydim (Falcon®, Fusion®*), clethodim (Select®), profoxydim A Cyclohexanediones (Aura®), sethoxydim (Cheetah® Gold*, Decision®*), tralkoxydim (Achieve®) A Phenylpyrazoles pinoxaden (Axial®) azimsulfuron (Gulliver®), bensulfuron (Londax®), chlorsulfuron (Glean®), ethoxysulfuron (Hero®), foramsulfuron (Tribute®), halosulfuron (Sempra®), iodosulfuron (Hussar®), mesosulfuron (Atlantis®), metsulfuron (Ally®, Harmony®* M, Stinger®*, Trounce®*, B Sulfonylureas Ultimate Brushweed®* Herbicide), prosulfuron (Casper®*), rimsulfuron (Titus®), sulfometuron (Oust®, Eucmix Pre Plant®*), sulfosulfuron (Monza®), thifensulfuron (Harmony®* M), triasulfuron, (Logran®, Logran® B Power®*), tribenuron (Express®), trifloxysulfuron (Envoke®, Krismat®*) florasulam (Paradigm®*, Vortex®*, X-Pand®*), flumetsulam B Triazolopyrimidines (Broadstrike®), metosulam (Eclipse®), pyroxsulam (Crusader®Rexade®*) imazamox (Intervix®*, Raptor®,), imazapic (Bobcat I-Maxx®*, Flame®, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazapyr (Arsenal Xpress®*, Intervix®*, B Imidazolinones Lightning®*, Midas®*, OnDuty®*), imazethapyr (Lightning®*, Spinnaker®) B Pyrimidinylthiobenzoates bispyribac (Nominee®), pyrithiobac (Staple®) C Amides: propanil (Stam®) C Benzothiadiazinones: bentazone (Basagran®,
    [Show full text]