3 results
Soybean Response to Dicamba Applied at Vegetative and Reproductive Growth Stages
- James L. Griffin, Matthew J. Bauerle, Daniel O. Stephenson III, Donnie K. Miller, Joseph M. Boudreaux
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 27 / Issue 4 / December 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 696-703
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Availability of soybean with dicamba resistance will provide an alternative weed management option, but risk of dicamba injury to sensitive crops from off-target movement and spray tank contamination is of concern. Research conducted at multiple locations and years evaluated soybean injury and yield response to POST applications of the diglycolamine salt of dicamba. Dicamba was applied at the two to three trifoliate stage (V3/V4) at 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, 70, 140, and 280 g ae ha−1 (1/128 to 1/2 of the recommended use rate of 560 g ae ha−1). Soybean injury 7 d after application was 20% following dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1 and increased to 89% at 280 g ha−1. At 14 d after application, injury for the same rates increased from 39 to 97%. In a separate study, dicamba was applied at first flower (R1) at 1.1, 2.2, 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, and 70 g ha−1 (1/512 to 1/8 of use rate). Soybean injury 7 d following dicamba application was 19% at 1.1 g ha−1 and increased to 64% at 70 g ha−1. For the same rates of dicamba, injury from 7 to 14 d after application increased no more than 4 percentage points. For dicamba rates in common for the timing studies, soybean injury 14 d after treatment was greatest for application at V3/V4, but the negative effect on mature soybean height and yield was greatest for application at R1. For dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1 (1/128th of use rate), soybean yield was reduced 4% when applied at V3/V4 and 10% when applied at R1. For 17.5 g ha−1 dicamba (1/32 of use rate), yield was reduced 15% at V3/V4 and 36% at R1. Based on yield reductions for 4.4 and 17.5 g ha−1 dicamba, soybean at flowering was around 2.5 times more sensitive compared with vegetative exposure.
Field Evaluation of Auxin Herbicide Volatility Using Cotton and Tomato as Bioassay Crops
- Matthew J. Bauerle, James L. Griffin, Jason L. Alford, Albert B. Curry III, Michael M. Kenty
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 29 / Issue 2 / June 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 185-197
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Research was conducted to compare cotton and tomato response to volatility of 2,4-D, dicamba, and triclopyr formulations. Herbicide treatments were applied to tilled soil during August and September, and potted plants were placed in the center of treated strips. To quantify injury, leaf cupping/crinkling/drooping; leaf rolling/strapping; stem epinasty; and stem swelling/cracking were each visually rated on an injury scale of 0 to 5 (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = slight to moderate, 3 = moderate, 4 = moderate to severe, and 5 = severe). Leaf cupping/crinkling/drooping injury averaged across herbicide treatments at 1× rates was 1.0 for cotton and 2.0 for tomato 14 d after treatment (DAT). Averaged across crops, leaf cupping/crinkling/drooping injury for the 1× rates 14 DAT was equivalent for the 2,4-D dimethylamine (DMA) salt, 2,4-D acid, dicamba DMA salt, dicamba diglycolamine (DGA) salt, dicamba acid, and triclopyr acid formulations and ranged from 1.1 to 1.8. For tomato, the only herbicide treatments with injury 14 DAT no greater than for the nontreated were 1× rates of 2,4-D DMA and 2,4-D acid for leaf rolling/strapping (1.0); 2,4-D acid, dicamba DMA, dicamba acid, and triclopyr acid for stem epinasty (0.3 to 0.7); and 2,4-D DMA, 2,4-D acid, dicamba DMA, dicamba DGA, dicamba acid, and triclopyr acid for stem swelling/cracking (0.1 to 0.2). A weighted factor assigned to each injury criterion provided an overall total injury estimate of 0 to 100%. When applied at 1× rates, total injury for 2,4-D isooctyl ester was 10% for cotton and 36% for tomato and for triclopyr butoxyethyl ester was 11% for cotton and 50% for tomato. For the 2,4-D DMA, 2,4-D acid, dicamba DMA, dicamba DGA, dicamba acid, and triclopyr acid formulations, total injury was 4 to 8% for cotton and 20 to 24% for tomato, and for both crops, injury was no greater than for the nontreated.
Contributors
-
- By Linda S. Aglio, Cyrus Ahmadi Yazdi, Syed Irfan Qasim Ali, Caryn Barnet, Jessica Bauerle, Felicity Billings, Evan Blaney, Beverly Chang, Christopher Chen, Zinaida Chepurny, Hyung Sun Choi, Allison Clark, Lauren J. Cornella, Lisa Crossley, Michael D’Ambra, Galina Davidyuk, Whitney de Luna, Manisha S. Desai, Sukumar P. Desai, Kelly G. Elterman, Michaela K. Farber, Iuliu Fat, Jaida Fitzgerald, Devon Flaherty, John A. Fox, Gyorgy Frendl, Rejean Gareau, Joseph M. Garfield, Andrea Girnius, Laverne D. Gugino, J. Tasker Gundy, Carly C. Guthrie, Lisa M. Hammond, M. Tariq Hanifi, James Hardy, Philip M. Hartigan, Thomas Hickey, Richard Hsu, Mohab Ibrahim, David Janfaza, Yuka Kiyota, Suzanne Klainer, Benjamin Kloesel, Hanjo Ko, Bhavani Kodali, Vesela Kovacheva, J. Matthew Kynes, Robert W. Lekowski, Joyce Lo, Jeffrey Lu, Alvaro A. Macias, Zahra M. Malik, Erich N. Marks, Brendan McGinn, Jonathan R. Meserve, Annette Mizuguchi, Srdjan S. Nedeljkovic, Ju-Mei Ng, Michael Nguyen, Olutoyin Okanlawon, Jennifer Oliver, Krishna Parekh, Jessica Patterson, Christian Peccora, Pete Pelletier, Sujatha Pentakota, James H. Philip, Marc Philip T. Pimentel, Timothy D. Quinn, Elizabeth M. Rickerson, Susan L. Sager, Julia Serber, Shaheen Shaikh, Stanton Shernan, David Silver, Alissa Sodickson, Pingping Song, George P. Topulos, Agnieszka Trzcinka, Richard D. Urman, Rosemary Uzomba, Joshua Vacanti, Assia Valovska, Michael Vaninetti, Scott W. Vaughan, Kamen Vlassakov, Christopher Voscopoulos, Emily L. Wang, Laura Westfall, Zhiling Xiong, Stephanie Yacoubian, Dongdong Yao, Martin Zammert, Maksim Zayaruzny, Jose Luis Zeballos, Natthasorn Zinboonyahgoon, Jie Zhou
- Edited by Linda S. Aglio, Robert W. Lekowski, Richard D. Urman
-
- Book:
- Essential Clinical Anesthesia Review
- Published online:
- 05 February 2015
- Print publication:
- 08 January 2015, pp xi-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation