Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T22:29:04.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Efficacy is Antagonized by Manganese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark L. Bernards ,
Kurt D. Thelen  and
Donald Penner
Mark L. Bernards*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Kurt D. Thelen
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bernar34@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Michigan soybean producers have observed that glyphosate efficacy is sometimes reduced in tank mixtures with foliar manganese (Mn) fertilizers. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of Mn formulation, Mn application timing, tank mixture adjuvants, and Mn rate on glyphosate efficacy. Three Mn formulations, manganese sulfate and ethylaminoacetate chelate (Mn-EAA), manganese sulfate and lignin sulfonate chelate (Mn-LS), and manganese sulfate monohydrate (MnSO4) reduced glyphosate efficacy in greenhouse and field bioassays, but Mn ethylenediaminetetraacetate (Mn-EDTA) did not. Mn-EAA applied less than 3 d before glyphosate reduced glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf but not giant foxtail or common lambsquarters. The antagonism increased as the interval between treatment applications was shortened but did not appear when Mn was applied to velvetleaf 1 d or more after glyphosate. Including the adjuvants ammonium sulfate (AMS), EDTA, or citric acid in the glyphosate–Mn tank mixture increased control of giant foxtail and velvetleaf but only matched the efficacy of the glyphosate plus AMS control in three combinations: AMS with Mn-LS on velvetleaf, citric acid with MnSO4 on giant foxtail, and EDTA with Mn-EAA on giant foxtail. AMS increased the glyphosate efficacy in Mn tank mixtures as much as, or more than, citric acid and EDTA, with two exceptions: EDTA with Mn-EAA on giant foxtail and citric acid with MnSO4 on velvetleaf. Control of velvetleaf declined as the amount of Mn from Mn-EAA, Mn-LS, and MnSO4 in the tank mixture increased.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus. # ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max L.Fertilizerhard-water antagonismherbicide interactionmicronutrientsplit applicationAMS, ammonium sulfateEDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetateglyphosate-IPA, isopropylamine salt of glyphosateglyphosate-K, potassium salt of glyphosateMn-EAA, manganese sulfate and ethylaminoacetate chelateMn-EDTA, manganese ethylenediaminetetraacetateMn-LS, manganese sulfate and lignin sulfonate chelateMnSO4, manganese sulfate monohydrate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 27 - 34
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

Bailey, W. A., Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Glyphosate interactions with manganese. Weed Technol. 16:792–799.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983a. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31:124–130.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983b. Effect of water quality, carrier volume, and acid on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 31:163–169.Google Scholar
Camberato, J. J. 2001. Manganese Deficiency and Fertilization of Soybeans. Web page: http://www.clemson.edu/edisto/soybean/manganese.pdf. Accessed: May 7, 2004.Google Scholar
Gettier, S. W., Martens, D. C., and Brumback, T. B. 1985. Timing of foliar manganese application for correction of manganese deficiency in soybean. Agron. J 77:627–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettier, S. W., Martens, D. C., Hallock, D. L., and Stewart, M. J. 1984. Residual Mn and associated soybean yield response from MnSO4 application on a sandy loam soil. Plant Soil 81:101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, R. L. 1984. Metal complex formation by glyphosate. J. Agric. Food. Chem 32:1249–1253.Google Scholar
Hall, G. J., Hart, C. A., and Jones, C. A. 2000. Plants as sources of cations antagonistic to glyphosate activity. Pest Manag. Sci 56:351–358.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. R. 2000. Manganese: Needs of Soils and Crops in New Jersey. Rutgers Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 973: Web page: http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs973.pdf. Accessed: May 7, 2003.Google Scholar
Heckman, J. R., Majek, B. A., and Prostko, E. P. 1999. Application of manganese fertilizer with postemergence soybean herbicides. J. Prod. Agric 12:445–448.Google Scholar
Lundager Madsen, H. E., Christensen, H. H., and Gottlieb-Petersen, C. 1978. Stability constants of copper(II), zinc, manganese(II), calcium, and magnesium complexes of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (glyphosate). Acta Chem. Scand. A 32:79–83.Google Scholar
Martell, A. E. and Smith, R. M. 1974. Critical Stability Constants. Volume 1. New York: Plenum. Pp. 203–209.Google Scholar
Mengel, K. and Kirkby, E. A. 1987. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 4th ed. Bern, Switzerland: International Potash Institute. Pp. 513–523.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 39:622–628.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1992. Species differ in response to adjuvants with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 6:561–566.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.Google Scholar
Nilsson, G. 1985. Interactions between glyphosate and metals essential for plant growth. in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. London: Butterworths. Pp. 35–47.Google Scholar
Saito, Y. 1968. X-ray and neutron diffraction. in Nakamoto, K. and McCarthy, P. J., eds. Spectroscopy and Structure of Metal Chelate Compounds. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2001. The SAS system. Version 8.2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. and Tupy, D. R. 1984. Reversal of cation-induced reduction in glyphosate activity with EDTA. Weed Sci. 32:803–806.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Phillips, W. M. 1979. Effects of water quality and spray volume on glyphosate toxicity. Weed Sci. 27:38–41.Google Scholar
Szelezniak, E., Woznica, Z., and Nalewaja, J. D. 2001. Glyphosate Efficacy as Affected by Mixing Sequence with Adjuvants. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society Abstr. 56. (Dec. 2001). [CD-Rom].Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995a. The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541–548.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995b. Utility of nuclear magnetic resonance for determining the molecular influence of citric acid and an organosilicone adjuvant on glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:566–571.Google Scholar
Tisdale, S. L., Nelson, W. L., Beaton, J. D., and Havlin, J. L. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 5th ed. New York: Macmillan. Pp. 332–337.Google Scholar