Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T12:44:15.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Performance of Glyphosate as Influenced by Selected Adjuvants and a Low-Volume, Air-Assisted Sprayer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wilson H. Faircloth ,
Michael G. Patterson ,
Sidney B. Belcher ,
Jason C. Sanders  and
Daniel O. Stephenson IV
Wilson H. Faircloth*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849
Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849
Sidney B. Belcher
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849
Jason C. Sanders
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849
Daniel O. Stephenson IV
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wfairclo@acesag.auburn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station near Shorter, AL, from 1998 to 2000 to evaluate six commercial spray adjuvants and their effects on glyphosate applied to cotton with an air-assisted sprayer. Each adjuvant was evaluated with a conventional sprayer calibrated to deliver 94 L/ha solution and a low-volume, air-assisted sprayer calibrated to deliver 19 L/ha solution. Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Visual control of pitted and entireleaf morningglory was more dependent on the rate of herbicide application than on a particular adjuvant or sprayer, with glyphosate at 0.42 kg ae/ha providing 70% control 21 d after treatment. Pitted and entireleaf morningglory biomass measurements generally reflected visual control data. Ammonium sulfate and formulated glyphosate consistently gave the highest visual control and the greatest biomass reduction. Glyphosate application rate was more important than adjuvant addition or sprayer type, with the higher rates of application providing greater control. No differences in weed control were observed between spray systems; therefore, air-assisted sprayers may be used on a field-scale basis with consistent and adequate results.

Keywords

Glyphosateentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 1220BG/RR’Glyphosate-resistant cottonIPOHEIPOLAsurfactantAMS, ammonium sulfateCOC, crop oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentGLY+, formulated glyphosateNIS-1, nonionic surfactantNIS-2, nonionic wetter–spreader–penetrantNIS-3, nonionic surfactant–penetrant–acidifierPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedWCA, water conditioning agent
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 458 - 463
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

Arnold, A. C. and Munford, J. D. 1989. The development and use of vegetable oil adjuvants with pesticides in Western Europe. in Chow, P.N.P., Grant, C. A., Hinshalwood, A. M., and Simundsson, E., eds. Adjuvants and Agrochemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
Breeden, G. K., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Influence of fertilizer additives and surfactants on performance of Roundup Ultra and Touchdown. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:276–277.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. 2001. Report of the 2000 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 25:1207–1210.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H. and Collins, R. K. 1990. Morningglory control systems in Louisiana cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 14:365.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1988. Established foxtail barley, Hordeum jubatum, control with glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol. 2:364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, C. D., Hurst, H. R., and Austin, D. F. 1990. Biology and control of morningglories (Ipomoea spp). Rev. Weed Sci. 5:83–114.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. ACS Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Pp. 6–16.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1997. Droplet size of glyphosate spray mixtures. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:207.Google Scholar
Hull, H. M., Davis, D. G., and Stolzenberg, G. E. 1982. Action of adjuvants on plant surfaces. in Hodgson, F. H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. WSSA Monograph. Champaign, IL: WSSA. Pp. 26–67.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. and Bohannan, D. R. 1995. Enhanced postemergence herbicide efficacy with ultra-low volume application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:208–212.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, R. C. 1993. Use and mode of action of adjuvants for herbicides: a review of some current work. Pest. Sci. 38:93–102.Google Scholar
Knoche, M. and Bukovac, M. J. 1993. Interaction of surfactant and leaf surface in glyphosate absorption. Weed Sci. 41:87–93.Google Scholar
Laerke, P. E. and Streibig, J. C. 1995. Foliar absorption of some glyphosate formulations and their efficacy on plants. Pest. Sci. 44:107–116.Google Scholar
Leaper, C. and Holloway, P. J. 2000. Adjuvants and glyphosate activity. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:313–319.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S. H., Campbell, R. A., Studens, J. A., and Wagner, R. G. 1996. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) as influenced by droplet size, droplet number, and herbicide. Weed Sci. 44:482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, K. L. and Colvin, T. S. 1995. Keeping costs down with low-volume spraying. Agric. Eng. 66/3:14–15.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., Fulgham, F. E., and Barrentine, W. L. 1988. An air-assisted spray nozzle for applying herbicides in ultralow volume. Weed Sci. 36:118–121.Google Scholar
Mulkey, J. L., Griffin, J. L., Miller, D. K., Clay, P. A., and Ellis, J. M. 1999. Weed control with glyphosate formulations and ammonium sulfate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:212.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1982. Action and fate of adjuvants in plants. in Hodgson, F. H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. WSSA Monograph. Champaign, IL: WSSA. Pp. 68–83.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol. 15:725–731.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Hagood, E. S. 2000. Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol. 14:667–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riechers, D. E., Wax, L. M., Liebl, R. A., and Bullock, D. G. 1995. Surfactant effects on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 9:281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, J. B., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1996. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 10:107–114.Google Scholar
Ruiter, H. D. and Meinen, E. 1998. Influence of water stress and surfactant on the efficacy, absorption, and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 46:289–296.Google Scholar
Ruiter, H. D., Uffing, A. J. M., and Meinen, W. 1996. Influence of surfactants and ammonium sulfate on glyphosate phytotoxicity to quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Technol. 10:803–808.Google Scholar
Salisbury, C. D., Chandler, J. M., and Merkle, M. G. 1991. Ammonium sulfate enhancement of glyphosate and SC-0224 control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol. 5:18–21.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2002. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 8.02. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1082 p.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P. 1993. Formulations and adjuvants. in Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 99–116.Google Scholar
Tredaway, J. A., Patterson, M. G., and Wehtje, G. R. 1997. Effect of pyrithiobac and bromoxynil applied with low-volume spray systems. Weed Technol. 11:725–730.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 1990. Morningglory: problems and management strategies in southeastern cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 14:360–361.Google Scholar