Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T11:22:08.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2019

Kayla N. Wiedau
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
Ronald F. Krausz
Affiliation:
Researcher, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
S. Alan Walters
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
Joseph L. Matthews
Affiliation:
Assistant Scientist, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
Karla L. Gage*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Karla L. Gage, Southern Illinois University, 1205 Lincoln Drive MC 4415, Agriculture Building, Room 176, Carbondale, IL 62901-6509. (Email: kgage@siu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Off-target movement of dicamba and 2,4-D may injure and reduce the yield of many fruit and vegetable crops, impacting specialty crop producers and herbicide applicators alike. Two field experiments were established, using plant growth regulator–resistant soybean herbicide technologies, to evaluate drift and carryover risks to horseradish production. The drift experiment was conducted in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate impact of dicamba and 2,4-D simulated drift on horseradish production with a mid-POST application in soybean. Simulated drift rates were 1/10,000X, 1/1,000X, and 1/100X, with 1/2X, 1X, and 2X of standard application rates. Injury and yield loss was greater following application of 2,4-D than with dicamba. Yield reductions were observed beginning at the 1/1,000X rate of 2,4-D, with complete crop loss occurring when rates exceed 1/2X. In comparison, dicamba only reduced yields when applied at the 1X and 2X rates. Only horseradish roots from plants treated with dicamba at the 2X rate had greater dicamba residue than the nontreated control, and the amount detected, 0.32 parts per billion (ppb), was lower than the EPA tolerance of 100 ppb in root crops. There was little to no harvestable tissue for 2,4-D residue analysis for plants treated with 2,4-D at rates above 1/2X. The carryover experiment was a 2-yr rotational evaluation conducted in 2014, 2015, and 2016 to assess dicamba carryover to horseradish following application to dicamba-resistant soybean the previous season. Observations taken at 4, 6, and 8 wk after planting indicated no significant horseradish injury, nor was height, stand, or root weight reduced. These results suggest that horseradish growers should have few concerns about injury from dicamba drift or carryover. While 2,4-D applicators may need to be cautious when making applications near horseradish fields, 2,4-D may be an effective tool for controlling volunteer horseradish in 2,4-D–resistant soybean.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019.
Figure 0

Table 1 Herbicide treatment list for dicamba and dicamba plus glyphosate premix applications in carryover experiment using dicamba-tolerant soybean.a

Figure 1

Table 2 Effect of dicamba and 2,4-D on horseradish chlorosis and necrosis in drift experiments at Edwardsville, IL, in 2015 and Medora, IL, in 2016.a

Figure 2

Table 3 Effect of dicamba and 2,4-D on horseradish plants per hectare and plant height in drift experiment pooled over 2015 and 2016 growing seasons.a

Figure 3

Table 4 Effect of dicamba and 2,4-D on horseradish yield and primary root weight, length, and diameter in drift experiments pooled over the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons.

Figure 4

Table 5 Effect of dicamba and 2,4-D rates on horseradish secondary roots (sets) in drift experiment separated by the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons.a

Figure 5

Table 6 Horseradish root residue analysis of dicamba and 2,4-D at harvest in drift experiments pooled over the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons.

Figure 6

Figure 1 (A) Horseradish yield (metric tons ha−1) as a function of visual height reduction (%) at 7 DAT as a result of dicamba simulated drift: y=19.16 − 0.3993x, R2=0.65, P=0.0001. (B) Horseradish yield (metric tons ha−1) as a function of foliar necrosis (%) at 14 DAT as a result of dicamba simulated drift: y=19.16 – 0.3993x, R2=0.65, P=0.0001.

Figure 7

Table 7 Influence of dicamba on dicamba-tolerant soybean plant population and growth stage in 2014 and 2015 and on subsequent year’s horseradish emergence, plant height, plant population, and yield pooled over the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons.a

Figure 8

Table 8 Effect of dicamba carryover when applied in a dicamba-tolerant soybean system on subsequent year’s horseradish yield, primary root length, diameter, and weight and secondary roots (sets) pooled over the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons.a