Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:18:11.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survey of Nebraska Farmers’ Adoption of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean Technology and Dicamba Off-Target Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

Rodrigo Werle ,
Maxwel C. Oliveira ,
Amit J. Jhala ,
Christopher A. Proctor ,
Jennifer Rees  and
Robert Klein
Rodrigo Werle*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Maxwel C. Oliveira
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Amit J. Jhala
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Christopher A. Proctor
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension Educator, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Jennifer Rees
Affiliation:
Extension Educator, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Robert Klein
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Rodrigo Werle, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Department of Agronomy, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 (Email: rwerle@wisc.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2017, dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean was commercially available to farmers in the United States. In August and September of 2017, a survey of 312 farmers from 60 Nebraska soybean-producing counties was conducted during extension field days or online. The objective of this survey was to understand farmers’ adoption and perceptions regarding DR soybean technology in Nebraska. The survey contained 16 questions and was divided in three parts: (1) demographics, (2) dicamba application in DR soybean, and (3) dicamba off-target injury to sensitive soybean cultivars. According to the results, 20% of soybean hectares represented by the survey were planted to DR soybean in 2017, and this number would probably double in 2018. Sixty-five percent of survey respondents own a sprayer and apply their own herbicide programs. More than 90% of respondents who adopted DR soybean technology reported significant improvement in weed control. Nearly 60% of respondents used dicamba alone or glyphosate plus dicamba for POST weed control in DR soybean; the remaining 40% added an additional herbicide with an alternative site of action (SOA) to the POST application. All survey respondents used one of the approved dicamba formulations for application in DR soybean. Survey results indicated that late POST dicamba applications (after late June) were more likely to result in injury to non-DR soybean compared to early POST applications (e.g., May and early June) in 2017. According to respondents, off-target dicamba movement resulted both from applications in DR soybean and dicamba-based herbicides applied in corn. Although 51% of respondents noted dicamba injury on non-DR soybean, 7% of those who noted injury filed an official complaint with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Although DR soybean technology allowed farmers to achieve better weed control during 2017 than previous growing seasons, it is apparent that off-target movement and resistance management must be addressed to maintain the viability and effectiveness of the technology in the future.

Keywords

Mark VanGessel, University of Delawaredicambacorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrBenzoic acidcrop injuryparticle driftsynthetic auxinvapor drift
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 754 - 761
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018. 

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

Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JPAR, Vieira, BC, Henry, RS, Obradovic, A, Grujic, M (2017) Spray drift from dicamba and glyphosate applications in a wind tunnel. Weed Technol 31:387–395 Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybean (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google 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 316:1185–1188 Google Scholar
Behrens, R, Lueschen, WE (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493 Google Scholar
Benbrook, CM (2016) Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ Sci Eur 28(3):1–15 Google Scholar
Bish, MD, Bradley, KW (2017) Survey of Missouri pesticide applicator practices, knowledge, and perceptions. Weed Technol 31:165–177 Google Scholar
Bonny, S (2008) Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28:21–32 Google Scholar
Busi, R, Goggin, DE, Heap, I, Horak, MJ, Jugulam, M, Masters, RA, Napier, R, Riar, DS, Satchivi, NM, Torra, J, Westra, P, Wright, TR (2018) Weed resistance to synthetic auxin herbicides. Pest Manag Sci. doi:10.1002/ps.4823 Google Scholar
Carlsen, SCK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778–786 Google Scholar
Dill, GM, CaJacob, CA, Padgette, SR (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Manag Sci 64:326–331 Google Scholar
Duke, SO (2015) Perspectives on transgenic, herbicide-resistant crops in the United States almost 20 years after introduction. Pest Manag Sci 71:652–657 Google Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2008) Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325 Google 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 62:193–206 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Mortensen, DA (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1023–1031 Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2017) EPA and states’ collective efforts lead to regulatory action on dicamba. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-states-collective-efforts-lead-regulatory-action-dicamba. Accessed: January 04, 2018Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Wechsler, S, Livingston, M, Mitchell, L (2014) Genetically engineered crops in the United States. USDA-ERS Economic Research Report Number 162. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2503388. 42 pGoogle Scholar
Givens, WA, Shaw, DR, Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MDK, Jordan, D (2009) Survey of tillage trends following the adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 23:150–155 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703 Google Scholar
Hager, A (2017) Observations of the Midwest weed extension scientists. Page 98 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2014) Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 70:1306–1315 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018a) Weeds resistant to ALS inhibitors (B/2). http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx. Accessed: January 10, 2018Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018b) Weeds resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/ResistbyActive.aspx. Accessed: January 15, 2018Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018c) Weeds resistant to the herbicide dicamba. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/ResistbyActive.aspx. Accessed: January 24, 2018Google Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K, Steckel, L, Moechnig, M, Loux, M, Bernards, M, Smeda, R (2010) Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybean. Crop Manag 9(1). doi:10.1094/CM-2010-0920-01-RS Google Scholar
Keelin, JW, Abernathy, JR (1988) Woollyleaf bursage (Ambrosia grayi) and Texas blueweed (Helianthus ciliaris) control by dicamba. Weed Technol 2:12–15 Google Scholar
Kniss, A (2018) An updated meta-analysis of soybean response to dicamba. Abstract 29, Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Weed Science Society of America. Arlington, VA: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle 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 29:226–232 Google Scholar
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Wolfe, S, Dami, I, Doohan, D (2016) 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 30:807–814 Google Scholar
Mueller, T (2017) Dicamba volatization from field surfaces. Page 95 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Perry, ED, Ciliberto, F, Hennessy, DA, Moschini, G (2016) Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybean. Sci Adv 2:e1600850 Google Scholar
Rankins, AJ, Byrd, JD Jr, Mask, DB, Barnett, JW, Gerard, PD (2005) Survey of soybean weeds in Mississippi. Weed Technol 19:492–498 Google Scholar
Schroeder, J, Banks, PA (1989) Soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) response to dicamba and dicamba plus 2,4-D. Weed Technol 3:67–71 Google Scholar
Service, RF (2007) Agbiotech. a growing threat down on the farm. Science 316:1114–1117 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, Vangessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2017) Perspectives on potential soybean yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 31:148–154 Google Scholar
Spandl, E, Rabaey, TL, Kells, JJ, Gordon, R (1997) Application timing for weed control in corn (Zea mays) with dicamba tank mixtures. Weed Technol 11:602–607 Google Scholar
Steckel, L, Bond, J, Ducar, J, York, A, Scott, B, Dotray, P, Barber, T, Bradley, K (2017) The good and the bad and the ugly: dicamba observations of southern weed extension scientists. Pages 98–99 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Stubben, CJ and Milligan, BG (2007) Estimating and analyzing demographic models using the popbio package in R. J Stat Soft 22:1–23.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture [USDA] (2017) National Agricultural Statistics Service 2017. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
Vieira, G, Oliveira, MC, Giacomini, D, Arsenijevic, N, Tranel, P, Werle, R (2017a) Molecular screening of PPO and glyphosate resistance in Palmer amaranth populations from southwest Nebraska. Pages 32–33 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Vieira, BC, Samuelson, SL, Alves, GS, Gaines, TA, Werle, R, Kruger, GR (2017b) Distribution of glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus spp. in Nebraska. Pest Manag Sci. doi/abs/10.1002/ps.4781 Google Scholar
Vink, JP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2012) Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in dicamba-tolerant soybean. Weed Technol 26:422–428 Google Scholar
Webster, TM and MacDonald, GE (2001) A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol 15:771–790 Google Scholar
Wehtje, G (2008) Synergism of dicamba with diflufenzopyr with respect to turfgrass weed control. Weed Technol 22:679–684 Google Scholar
Young, BG, Farrell, S, Bradley, KW, Latorre, DO, Kruger, GR, Barber, T, Norsworthy, JK, Scott, B, Reynolds, D, Steckel, L (2017) University research on dicamba volatility. Pages 100–101 in Proceedings of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society. St Louis, MO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar