Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T23:37:12.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Application Variables on Efficacy of Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David L. Jordan ,
Alan C. York ,
James L. Griffin ,
Patrick A. Clay ,
P. Roy Vidrine  and
Daniel B. Reynolds
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Patrick A. Clay
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
P. Roy Vidrine
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 8105 East Campus Drive, Alexandria, LA 71302
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, St. Joseph, LA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1993 to 1995 to compare weed control by the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate at 0.21, 0.42, 0.63, and 0.84 kg ae/ha applied at three stages of weed growth. Weed control by glyphosate applied at these rates alone or with ammonium sulfate at 2.8 kg/ha was also evaluated. In other experiments, potential interactions between glyphosate and acifluorfen, chlorimuron, and 2,4-DB were evaluated. Velvetleaf, prickly sida, sicklepod, pitted morningglory, entireleaf morningglory, palmleaf morningglory, and hemp sesbania were controlled more easily when weeds had one to three leaves compared with control when weeds had four or more leaves. Glyphosate controlled redroot pigweed, velvetleaf, prickly sida, sicklepod, and barnyardgrass more effectively than pitted morningglory, entireleaf morningglory, palmleaf morningglory, or hemp sesbania. Increasing the rate of glyphosate increased control, especially when glyphosate was applied to larger weeds. Greater variation in control was noted for pitted morningglory, palmleaf morningglory, prickly sida, and velvetleaf than for redroot pigweed, sicklepod, entireleaf morningglory, or hemp sesbania. Ammonium sulfate increased prickly sida and entireleaf morningglory control but did not influence sicklepod, hemp sesbania, or barnyardgrass control. Acifluorfen applied 3 d before glyphosate or in a mixture with glyphosate reduced barnyardgrass control compared with glyphosate applied alone. Chlorimuron did not reduce efficacy. Mixtures of glyphosate and 2,4-DB controlled sicklepod, entireleaf morningglory, and barnyardgrass similar to glyphosate alone.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine2,4-DB, 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGpalmleaf morningglory, Ipomoea wrightii Gray # IPOWRpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medikus # ABUTHAmmonium sulfateantagonismapplication timingherbicide interactionacifluorfenchlorimuron2,4-DBAbutilon theophrastiAmaranthus hybridusEchinochloa crus-galliIpomoea hederacea var. integriusculaIpomoea lacunosaIpomoea wrightiiSenna obtusifoliaSesbania exaltataSida spinosaABUTHAMARECASOBECHCGIPOHGIPOLAIPOWRSEBEXSIDSPEPOST, early POSTMPOST, mid POSTLPOST, late POSTWAT, weeks after treatment

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 354 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.Google Scholar
Baldwin, F. L. 1995. Weed control in Roundup tolerant soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:46.Google Scholar
Barker, M. A., Thompson, L. Jr., and Godley, F. M. Jr. 1984. Control of annual morningglories (Ipomoea spp.) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:813–818.Google Scholar
Barry, G. F., Kishore, G. M., Padgette, S. R., et al. 1992. Inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis: strategies for imparting glyphosate tolerance in crop plants. In Singh, B. K. et al., eds. Biosynthesis and Molecular Regulation of Amino Acids in Plants. Rockville, MD: American Society of Plant Physiology. pp. 139–145.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31:124–130.Google Scholar
Clay, P. A., Griffin, J. L., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control programs in Roundup Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:49–50.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H. 1992. Preplant weed control in conservation tillage systems for cotton. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 139–140.Google Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., Beighley, D. H., et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35:1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1988. Established foxtail barley, Hordeum jabatum, control with glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol. 2:634–638.Google Scholar
Doss, L. G. and York, A. C. 1995. Roundup Ready soybean response to glyphosate and ALS inhibitor combinations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:45–46.Google Scholar
Edmund, R. M. Jr., and York, A. C. 1987. Factors affecting postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025. Weed Sci. 35:216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, K. L., Burton, J. D., and Coble, H. D. 1995. Physiological basis for antagonism of fluazifop-P by DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:184–191.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev, Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. and Coble, H. D. 1990. Compatibility of sethoxydim with five postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:128–133.Google Scholar
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol. 8:129–133.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. L. 1973. Enhancements of herbicides by silicone adjuvants. Weed Sci. 21:130–135.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1977. Effects of diluent volume and surfactant on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 25:448–451.Google Scholar
King, C. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Application rate and timing of acifluorfen, bentazon, chlorimuron, and imazaquin. Weed Technol. 6:526–534.Google Scholar
Madsen, K. H. 1993. Weed control in glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeets (Beta vulgarus L.). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 33:16.Google Scholar
Minion, B. W., Kurtz, M. E., and Shaw, D. R. 1989. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with grass and broadleaf herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 37:223–227.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1992. Species differ in response to additives with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 6:561–566.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.Google Scholar
Obrigawitch, T. T., Kenyon, W. H., and Kuratle, H. 1990. Effect of application timing on rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with DPX-V9360. Weed Sci. 38:45–49.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Singh, M. 1992. Organosilicone adjuvant effects on glyphosate efficacy and rainfastness. Weed Technol. 6:361–365.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Hayes, R. M., Shelby, P. P., Bradley, J. F., and Derting, C. W. 1996. Weed management programs in Roundup Ready™ cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36:1.Google Scholar
Selleck, G. W. and Baird, D. D. 1981. Antagonism of glyphosate and residual herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 29:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleton, G. S., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1994. Response of broadleaf weeds to Staple (DPX-PE350), bromoxynil, and glyphosate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:39–40.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Reduced rates of Roundup (glyphosate) or Ignite (glufosinate) for postemergence weed control. Abstr. Ark. Agric. Pestic. Assoc. 33:11.Google Scholar
Walker, R. H. and Spratlin, C. E. 1995. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:39–40.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R. and Walker, R. H. 1996. Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) control with combinations of glyphosate and 2,4-DB. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:30–31.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. S., Mines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531–536.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 1995. Weed management with Roundup-Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:34–35.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Grichar, W. J. 1993. Interaction of 2,4-DB with postemergence graminicides. Peanut Sci. 30:57–81.Google Scholar