Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T07:18:44.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigations of the sensitivity of ornamental, fruit, and nut plant species to driftable rates of 2,4-D and dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2019

Brian R. Dintelmann*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Michele R. Warmund
Affiliation:
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Mandy D. Bish
Affiliation:
Extension Weed Specialist, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Kevin W. Bradley
Affiliation:
Professor, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Brian R. Dintelmann, Graduate Research Assistant, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, 5 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO65211. Email: brdfkb@mail.missouri.edu

Abstract

An experiment was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to determine the sensitivity of driftable rates of 2,4-D and dicamba with or without glyphosate on common ornamental, fruit, and nut species. Three driftable rates corresponding to ½, 1/20th, and 1/200th of the manufacturer’s labeled rate (1 × rate) of 2,4-D (1.09 kg ae ha−1), 2,4-D plus glyphosate (1.09 kg ae ha−1 plus 1.10 kg ae ha−1), dicamba (0.56 kg ae ha−1), and dicamba plus glyphosate (0.56 kg ae ha−1 plus 1.10 kg ae ha−1) were applied to apple, crabapple, dogwood, American elderberry, American elm, grapevine, hydrangea, red maple, pin oak, peach, pecan, eastern redbud, rose, red raspberry, strawberry, sweetgum, nannyberry viburnum, and black walnut plants. Visible estimates of injury were recorded 28 and 56 days after treatment (DAT). Plant measurements included leaf malformation, tree trunk growth, and shoot length. Across all species, the ½ × rate of 2,4-D plus glyphosate resulted in 61% injury 28 DAT, whereas the ½ × rate of dicamba plus glyphosate resulted in 51% injury. Across plant species and herbicides, ½ ×, 1/20 ×, and 1/200 × rates caused injury ranging from 3% to 100%, 0% to 66%, and 0% to 19%, respectively. Hydrangea was the least sensitive species; grapevine was most sensitive. Changes in plant measurements were dependent on the species and herbicide applied. Treatments at the ½ × or 1/20 × rate resulted in shoot length, leaf malformation, and trunk tree diameter differences for 11, 10, and 7 species, respectively, compared with nontreated plants. Collectively, the measurements and visual injury assessments indicated apple, red maple, peach, and pin oak were more sensitive to treatments containing dicamba, whereas black walnut, grapevine, and American elm were more sensitive to 2,4-D. Although the 1/200 × rates of 2,4-D and dicamba did not result in changes to plant measurements, obvious injury symptoms were observed, which could render these plants unsalable.

Type
Research Article
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: Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

References

Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R, Fuerst, EP (1992) Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol 6:975979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R, Fuerst, EP (1993) Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) response to simulated herbicide drift. Weed Technol 7:97102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JP, de Santana, DG, Pinto, LA, Guimarães, F, Zaric, M (2017) Dicamba spray drift as influenced by wind speed and nozzle type. Weed Technol 31:724731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajwa, AA, Mahajan, G, Chauhan, BS (2015) Nonconventional weed management strategies for modern agriculture. Weed Sci 63:723747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauerle, M, Griffin, J, Alford, J, Curry, A, III, Kenty, M (2015) Field evaluation of auxin herbicide volatility using cotton and tomato as bioassay crops. Weed Technol 29:185197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:11851188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behrens, R, Lueschen, W (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, MA, Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R (1996) Wine grape (Vitis vinifera) response to repeated exposure of selected sulfonylurea herbicides and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 10:951956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, MA, Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R (1997) Wine grape (Vitis vinifera) response to fall exposure of simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol 11:532536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bish, M, Farrell, S, Lerch, R, Bradley, K (2019) Dicamba losses to air following applications to soybean under stable and nonstable atmospheric conditions. J Environ Qual 48:16751682, 10.2134/jeq2019.05.0197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondada, B (2011) Anomalies in structure, growth characteristics, and nutritional composition as induced by 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid drift phytotoxicity in grapevine leaves and clusters. J Am Soc Hort Sci 136:165173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S, Nyquist, W, Walker, W (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two-or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comes, RD, Marquis, LY, Kelley, AD (1984) Response of Concord grapes (Vitis labrusca) to 2,4-D in irrigation water. Weed Sci 32:455459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of weed height and glufosinate plus 2,4-D combinations on weed control in soybean with resistance to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:271280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Shugart, J, Leifheit, N, Curry, M, Gray, T (2018) Effects of low-dose applications of 2,4-D and dicamba on watermelon. Weed Technol 32:267272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniell, JW, Hardcastle, WS (1972) Response of peach trees to herbicide and mechanical weed control. Weed Sci 20:133136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, JF, Mortensen, DA (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:10231031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feucht, JR (1988) Herbicide injuries to trees—symptoms and solutions. J Arboric 14:215219Google Scholar
Hemphill, DD, Montgomery, ML (1981) Response of vegetable crops to sublethal application of 2,4-D. Weed Sci 29:632635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holterman, H, Van De Zande, J, Porskamp, H, Huijsmans, J (1997) Modelling spray drift from boom sprayers. Comput Electron Agric 19:122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K (2010) Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans. Crop Manag 9, 10.1094/CM-2010-0920-01-RSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G, Norsworthy, K, Barber, T, Gbur, E, Krueger, G (2019) Off-target movement of DGA and BAPMA dicamba to sensitive soybean. Weed Technol 33:5165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR (2018) Soybean response to dicamba: A meta-analysis. Weed Technol 32:507512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2010) Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations after exposure to postemergence 2,4-D. Weed Sci 58:413419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Doohan, DJ, Weller, SC (2012) Dose response of glyphosate and dicamba on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) injury. Weed Technol 26:256260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, JL (1998) Compendium of strawberry diseases (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society. 14 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, MP (2008) Hormesis defined. Ageing Res Rev 7:17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCown, S, Barber, T, Norsworthy, J (2018) Response of non-dicamba-resistant soybean to dicamba as influenced by growth stage and herbicide rate. Weed Technol 32:513519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, G, Monks, D, Leidy, R (1996) Clopyralid use in strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) grown on plastic mulch. Weed Sci 44:350354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Doohan, D (2015) Response of bell pepper and broccoli to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 29:226232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Wolfe, S, Dami, I, Doohan, D (2015) Response of wine grape cultivars to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate, and 2,4-D or dicamba plus glyphosate. Weed Technol 30:807814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T, Steckel, L (2019) Dicamba volatility in humidomes as affected by temperature and herbicide treatment. Weed Technol 33:541546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, U, Crawford, BC, Carpenter, R, Coen, E (2003) Genetic control of surface curvature. Science 299:14041407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nordby, A, Skuterud, R (1974) The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res 14:385395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci (Special Issue I) 60:3162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, JA, Storey, JB (1970) Effect of herbicides on weed control and growth of pecan trees. Weed Sci 18:522524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, AG, Ahmedullah, MA, Wright, GM (1991) Influence of repeated applications of 2,4-D on yield and juice quality of concord grapes (Vitis labruscana). Weed Sci 39:284295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otta, J (1974) Effects of 2,4-D herbicide on Siberian elm. Forest Sci 20:287290Google Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018) Cover crops suppression of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 32:6065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, MG, Goff, WD (1994) Effects of weed control and irrigation on pecan (Carya illinoinensis) growth and yield. Weed Technol 8:717719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, PW, Upchurch, RP (1968) Growth analysis of red maple and white ash seedlings treated with eight herbicides. Weed Sci 16:3237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, A (1976) Fate of glyphosate in deciduous fruit trees. Weed Sci 24:425430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2012) Summer annual weed control with 2,4-D and glyphosate. Weed Technol 26:657660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samtani, JB, Masiunas, JB, Appleby, JE (2008) Injury on white oak seedlings from herbicide exposure simulating drift. HortSci 43:20762080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shergill, LS, Bish, MD, Biggs, ME, Bradley, KW (2017) Monitoring the changes in weed populations in a continuous glyphosate-and dicamba-resistant soybean system: A five-year field-scale investigation. Weed Technol 32:166173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D (2014) Herbicide handbook. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 315 pGoogle Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Braxton, LB, Richburg, JS (2015) Evaluating the volatility of three formulations of 2,4-D when applied in the field. Weed Technol 29:177184CrossRefGoogle 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 28:131141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterrett, JP (1968) Response of oak and red maple to herbicides applied with an injector. Weed Sci 16:159160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterrett, JP (1969) Injection of hardwoods with dicamba, picloram, and 2,4-D. J Forest 67:820821Google Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] US Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2014) Determination of nonregulated status for Dow AgroSciences DAS-68416-4 soybean. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/11_23401p_det.pdf Accessed February 7, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] US Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. (2015) Determination of nonregulated status for Monsanto Company MON 88708 soybean. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/10_18801p_det.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2018Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2017) WSSA survey ranks most common and most troublesome weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits and vegetables. http://wssa.net/2017/05/wssa-survey-ranks-most-common-and-most-troublesome-weeds-in-broadleaf-crops-fruits-and-vegetables/ Accessed February 5, 2019Google Scholar
Wang, M, Rautmann, D (2008) A simple probabilistic estimation of spray drift—factors determining spray drift and development of a model. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:26172626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR, Maybank, J (1993) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can J Plant Sci 73:12611273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:2024020245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed