Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T18:09:48.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Spray Deposition of Fenoxaprop and Imazamethabenz on Wild Oat (Avena fatua) as Influenced by Environmental Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Haisheng S. Xie
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2
Brian C. Caldwell
Affiliation:
Agric. & Agri-Food Canada, Res. Stn., Box 440, Regina, SK, S4P 3A2
Andrew I. Hsiao
Affiliation:
Agric. & Agri-Food Canada, Res. Stn., Box 440, Regina, SK, S4P 3A2
William A. Quick
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada
Jian Fu Chao
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

Abstract

The effect of soil moisture, temperature, and light intensity on the spray deposition of fenoxaprop and imazamethabenz applied to wild oat plants was examined by using fluorescent tracer dye. Based on either biomass or total leaf area, the apparent deposition of the two herbicides diminished in the following order: shading > low temperature ≥ drought ≥ “optimum” > high temperature. The enhanced phytotoxicity of both herbicides under shading could be associated with increased spray deposition; and reduced fenoxaprop phytotoxicity under high temperature stress could be related to reduced deposition. Changes in spray deposition were attributed mainly to differences in herbicide interception due to altered plant morphology. Reduced retention for both herbicides was exhibited only in the plants grown at high temperature. Under “optimum” conditions, fenoxaprop phytotoxicity was directly associated with leaf orientation and thus with the proportion of projected leaf area at the time of herbicide spraying. Given similar application conditions, spray deposition of fenoxaprop and imazamethabenz on wild oat could be estimated by determining the ratio of the projected leaf area, as measured by an image analyzer, to the total leaf area.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Akey, W. G. and Morrison, I. N. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on wild oat (Avena fatua) response to diclofop. Weed Sci. 31:247253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Anderson, N. H., Hall, D. J., and Seaman, D. 1987. Spray retention: effects of surfactants and plant species. Aspects Appl. Biol. 14:233243.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1992. Pages 27 and 50 in Weed control in field and forage crops. Sask. Agric. and Food. Google Scholar
4. Coupland, D. 1989. Pre-treatment environmental effects on the uptake, translocation, metabolism and performance of fluazifop-butyl in Elymus repens . Weed Res. 29:289297.Google Scholar
5. Coupland, D., Caseley, J. C., and Simmons, R. C. 1976. The effect of light, temperature and humidity on the control of Avena fatua with difenzoquat. Proc. British Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 1:4753.Google Scholar
6. Davies, P. J., Drennan, D.S.H., Fryer, J. D., and Holly, K. 1967. The basis of the differential phytotoxicity of 4-hydroxy-3,5-di-iodobenzonitrile. I. The influence of spray retention and plant morphology. Weed Res. 7:220233.Google Scholar
7. Gerber, H. R., Nyffeler, A., and Green, D. H. 1983. The influence of rainfall, temperature, humidity and light on soil- and foliage-applied herbicides. Aspects of Appl. Biol. 4:114.Google Scholar
8. Grayson, B. T., Webb, J. D., Pack, S. E., and Edwards, D. 1991. Development and assessment of a mathematical model to predict foliar spray deposition under laboratory track spraying conditions. Pestic. Sci. 33:281304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hislop, E. C. 1987. Can we define and achieve optimum pesticide deposits'? Aspects of Appl. Biol. 14:153172.Google Scholar
10. Holloway, P. J. 1970. Surface factors affecting the wetting of leaves. Pestic. Sci. 1:156163.Google Scholar
11. Johnstone, D. R. 1973. Spreading and retention of agricultural sprays on foliage. Pages 343386 in van Valkenburg, W., ed. Pesticide Formulations. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
12. Kidder, D. W. and Behrens, R. 1988. Plant responses to haloxyfop as influenced by water stress. Weed Sci. 36:305312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Lake, J. R. 1977. The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic. Sci. 8:515520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Lutman, P.J.W. and Sagar, G. R. 1975. The influence of the nitrogen status of oat plants (Avena sativa L.) on the interception and retention of foliar spray. Weed Res. 15:217220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 41:568573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Muzik, T. 1976. Influence of environmental factors on toxicity to plants. Pages 203247 in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. vol. 2, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
17. Pillmoor, J. B. 1985. Influence of temperature on the activity of AC 222, 293 against Avena fatua and Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. Weed Res. 25:433442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. SAS Institute Inc. 1990. Pages 891996 in SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.04 ed., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
19. Schott, J. J., Dufour, J. L., and Gauvrit, C. 1991. Effect of adjuvants on herbicidal action. III. Effects of petroleum and rapeseed oils on diclofop-methyl action on ryegrass. Agronomie 11:2734.Google Scholar
20. Sharma, M. P., McBeath, D. K., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1977. Studies on the biology of wild oats. II. Growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:811817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Taylor, F. E., Davies, L. G., and Cobb, A. H. 1981. An analysis of the epicuticular wax of Chenodium album leaves in relation to environmental changes, leaf wettability and the penetration of the herbicide bentazone. Ann. Appl. Biol. 98:471478.Google Scholar
22. Thurston, J. M. 1957. Morphological and physiological variation in wild oats. J. Agric. Sci. 49:259274.Google Scholar
23. Wirth, W., Storp, S., and Jacobsen, W. 1991. Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions. Pestic. Sci. 33:411420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. 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. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:12611273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Xie, H. S. 1994. Influence of environmental factors on the performance of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop in wild oat (Avena fatua L.) and crops. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, 207 pp.Google Scholar
26. Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1993. Influence of water deficit on the phytotoxicity of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop among five wild oat populations. Environ. Exp. Bot. 33:283291.Google Scholar
27. Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1994. Effect of shading on the activity of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 42:6669.Google Scholar
28. Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1994. Impact of temperature on the phytotoxicity of imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop in wild oat (Avena fatua). Crop Prot. 13:376380.Google Scholar
29. Xie, H. S., Quick, W. A., and Hsiao, A. I. 1994. Effect of drought and formulation on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop. Crop Prot. 13:195200.Google Scholar
30. Xie, H. S., Quick, W. A., and Hsiao, A. I. 1994. Spring cereal response to imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl as influenced by environment. Weed Technol. 8:713716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar