Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T17:26:11.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate on clethodim efficacy of volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2019

Nick T. Harre Open the ORCID record for Nick T. Harre [Opens in a new window] ,
Julie M. Young  and
Bryan G. Young
Nick T. Harre*
Affiliation:
Former: Graduate student, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA; current: Visiting Scholar, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Julie M. Young
Affiliation:
Former: Researcher, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA; current: Researcher, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Former: Professor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA; current: Professor, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nick T. Harre, Department of Botany of Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN47907. Email: nharre@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management of volunteer glyphosate-resistant (GR) corn may be problematic in soybean resistant to glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba, as auxinic herbicides often antagonize graminicide efficacy. Field and greenhouse trials were conducted using mixtures of 2,4-D or dicamba in combination with glyphosate and clethodim-A (formulated without an adjuvant) or clethodim-SM (adjuvant-inclusive formulation) to determine the effect on volunteer GR corn control. Neither auxinic herbicide reduced clethodim efficacy, regardless of clethodim rate or formulation in field trials. However, the addition of glyphosate to these mixtures at the 35 g ai ha−1 clethodim dose reduced control from clethodim-A and clethodim-SM by 62% to 75% and 27% to 47%, respectively. Increasing the clethodim dose to 105 g ha−1 or greater in combination with glyphosate and either auxinic herbicide generally restored clethodim efficacy (74% to 98% control); in one site-year, the addition of glyphosate plus dicamba to clethodim-A at 140 g ha−1 still reduced control by 34%. In greenhouse experiments, clethodim-A efficacy was reduced by 17% and 28% when applied with glyphosate plus 420 and 1,680 g ae ha−1 2,4-D, respectively, in the absence of crop oil concentrate (COC). Increasing the dose of dicamba in a similar mixture had a negligible effect. Irrespective of auxinic herbicide dose, the inclusion of COC to clethodim-A mixtures with glyphosate plus 2,4-D or dicamba resulted in ≥ 90% control. These results specify an enhanced risk of reduced clethodim efficacy on volunteer GR corn when glyphosate is added to mixtures containing 2,4-D or dicamba. To optimize control from these mixtures, clethodim should be applied at ≥ 105 g ha−1 and should include an activator adjuvant in the form of COC and/or an adjuvant-inclusive clethodim formulation. This recommendation contrasts with several labels of clethodim that do not require COC when applied with adjuvant-loaded glyphosate products.

Keywords

Auxinic herbicidefoliar herbicide applicationgraminicideherbicide antagonismherbicide interaction2,4-Dclethodimdicambaglyphosatecorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 394 - 401
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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: Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri

References

Aguero-Alvarado, R, Appleby, AP, Armstrong, DJ (1991) Antagonism of haloxyfop activity in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) by dicamba and bentazon. Weed Sci 39:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alms, J, Moechnig, M, Vos, D, Clay, SA (2016) Yield loss and management of volunteer corn in soybean. Weed Technol 30:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, RN, Ford, JH, Lueschen, WE (1982) Controlling volunteer corn (Zea mays) in soybeans (Glycine max) with diclofop and glyphosate. Weed Sci 30:132–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015a) Arrow® 2EC herbicide. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld6DN007.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2019Google Scholar
Anonymous (2015b) Select Max® herbicide. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld6SQ005.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2019Google Scholar
Barnwell, P, Cobb, AH (1993) An investigation of aryloxyphenoxypropionate antagonism of auxin-type herbicide action on proton-efflux. Pestic Biochem Phys 47:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnwell, P, Cobb, AH (1994) Graminicide antagonism by broadleaf weed herbicides. Pestic Sci 44:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Harker, N, Clayton, GW, O’Donovan, JT (2006) Broadleaf herbicide effects on clethodim and quizalofop-p efficacy on volunteer wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 20:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, DC (1989) Adjuvant and pH effects on sethoxydim and clethodim activity on rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol 3:615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardiff, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Jhala, AJ (2015a) Herbicide programs for control of glyphosate-resistant volunteer corn in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, PS, Jhala, AJ (2015b) Impact of glyphosate-resistant volunteer corn (Zea mays L.) density, control timing, and late-season emergence on yield of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max L.). Crop Prot 81:38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, W, Hamill, A, Shropshire, C, Soltani, N, Sikkema, PH (2006) Control of volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays) in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 20:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dill, GM (2005) Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status and future. Pest Manag Sci 61:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, RA, Drexler, DM (1980) Interactions of diclofop-methyl and 2,4-D in cultivated oats (Avena sativa). Weed Sci 28:363–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frene, RL (2017) Weed control programs for Conyza summatrensis glyphosate-resistant biotypes in Enlist E3™ soybeans in Argentina. Page 345in Proceedings of the Weed Science Society of America. Tucson, AZ: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Godley, JL, Kitchen, LM (1986) Interaction of acifluorfen with fluazifop for annual grass control. Weed Sci 34:936–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JM (1989) Herbicide antagonism at the whole plant level. Weed Technol 3:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, MR, Cobb, AH (1998) An investigation of herbicide interaction with the H+-ATPase activity of plant plasma membranes. Pest Manag Sci 53:155–1643.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, DL, York, AC (1989) Effects of ammonium fertilizers and BCH 81508 S on antagonism with sethoxydim plus bentazon mixtures. Weed Technol 3:450–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jugulam, M, Hall, C, Johnson, WG, Kelley, KB, Riechers, DE (2011) Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: historical perspectives, mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Sci 59:445–457Google Scholar
Kells, JJ, Meggitt, WF, Penner, D (1984) Absorption, translocation, and activity of fluazifop-butyl as influenced by plant growth stage and environment. Weed Sci 32:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR, Sbatella, GM, Wilson, RG (2012) Volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn interference and control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. Weed Technol 26:348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moechnig, M, Simpson, DM, Ruen, D, Rosenbaum, KK, Johnson, K, Campbell, LA, Scherder, E, Tewari, SS (2016) 2,4-D choline and glufosinate weed control options in Enlist soybean. Page 81in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Des Moines, IA: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Steckel, LE (2019) Spray mixture pH as affected by dicamba, glyphosate, and spray additives. Weed Technol 33:547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Barrett, M, Witt, WW (1990) A basis for the antagonistic effect of 2,4-D on haloxyfop-methyl toxicity to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci 38:103–10710.1017/S0043174500056216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (1989) Antagonism of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with fenoxaprop, haloxyfop, and sethoxydim by 2,4-D. Weed Technol 3:86–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Matysiak, R (1992) 2,4-D and salt combinations affect glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Technol 6:322–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK, Poston, DH, Reddy, KN, Koger, CH (2007) Formulation and adjuvant effects on uptake and translocation of clethodim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci 55:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, R, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, W, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60 (Special Issue I):31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, WA, Nalewaja, JD (1981) Antagonistic effects of MCPA on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with diclofop. Weed Sci 29:566–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, PA, O’Donovan, JT (1980) Interaction between glyphosate and various herbicides for broadleaved weed control. Weed Res 20:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, D (2000) Activator adjuvants. Weed Technol 14:785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2015) Control of volunteer corn with AAD-1 (aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-1) transgene in soybean. Weed Technol 29:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Siefert-Higgins, S, Bradley, KW (2014) Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) management in dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 28:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, B, Zhou, J, Messersmith, CG, Nalewaja, JD (2007) Efficacy of glyphosate plus bentazon or quizalofop on glyphosate-resistant canola or corn. Weed Technol 21:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, BG, Stobbe, EH (1980) The basis of the antagonistic effect of 2,4-D on diclofop-methyl toxicity to wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 28:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, MG, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE (2016) The addition of dicamba to POST applications of quizalofop-p-ethyl or clethodim antagonizes volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn control in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 30:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varanasi, A, Prasad Vara, PV, Jugulam, M (2016) Impact of climate change factors on weeds and herbicide efficacy. Pages 107–146in Sparks, D, ed. Advances in Agronomy. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Wanamarta, G, Kells, JJ, Penner, D (1993) Overcoming antagonistic effects of Na-bentazon on sethoxydim absorption. Weed Technol 7:322–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. PNAS 107:20240–20245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, HS, Hsiao, AI, Quick, WA, Hume, JA (1996) Influence of water stress on absorption, translocation and phytotoxicity of fenoxaprop-ethyl and imazamethabenz-methyl in Avena fatua. Weed Res 36:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, BG, Hart, SE, Wax, LM (1996) Interactions of sethoxydim and corn (Zea mays) postemergence broadleaf herbicides on three annual grasses. Weed Technol 10:914–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA (2005) Influence of clethodim formulation and oil adjuvants on weed control and overcoming herbicide antagonism. J ASTM Int 2:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar