Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:45:57.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carrier Volume Affects Wheat Response to Simulated Glyphosate Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher A. Roider,
James L. Griffin,
Stephen A. Harrison and
Curtis A. Jones
Christopher A. Roider
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Central Research Station Plant Science Unit and Farm Support Unit, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Lee F. Mason Louisiana State University Alumni School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Stephen A. Harrison
Affiliation:
Lee F. Mason Louisiana State University Alumni School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Curtis A. Jones
Affiliation:
Lee F. Mason Louisiana State University Alumni School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of carrier volume was evaluated in field experiments for glyphosate applied to wheat at rates representing 12.5 and 6.3% of the usage rate of 1,120 g ai/ha (140 and 70 g/ha, respectively). Wheat at first node and at heading was exposed to glyphosate applied in a constant carrier volume of 234 L/ha, where herbicide concentration declined with reduction in dosage, and in proportional carrier volumes of 30 L/ha for the 12.5% rate and 15 L/ha for the 6.3% rate, where herbicide concentration remained constant. At 28 d after treatment, glyphosate applied at first node in proportional carrier volume (an average for 30 and 15 L/ha adjusted proportionally to glyphosate rate) reduced wheat height 42% compared with 15% when glyphosate was applied in 234 L/ha. Height reduction was no more than 15% when glyphosate was applied at heading in 234 L/ha or in the proportional carrier volumes and at first node in 234 L/ha. Wheat yield was reduced 42% when glyphosate at 140 g/ha was applied in 234 L/ha but was reduced 54% for the same rate applied in proportional carrier volume. For 70 g/ha glyphosate, wheat yield was reduced 11% when applied in 234 L/ha, but was reduced 42% when the same rate was applied in proportional carrier volume. Wheat yield reduction was equivalent when glyphosate was applied in 234 L/ha at first node and at heading (29 and 24%, respectively), but yield reductions of 60% for first node application and 36% for heading application were observed when glyphosate was applied in a proportional carrier volume. When averaged across carrier volumes and glyphosate rates, the greater yield loss from application at first node was attributed to decreased number of spikelets per spike and seed weight per spike.

Keywords

Glyphosatewheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘USG 3209’Crop injuryherbicide driftoff-target movementwater volumewheat yield components

Information

Type
Weed Management — Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2008, pp. 453 - 458
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13:264–270.Google Scholar
Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:740–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2002. Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol. 16:833–837.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983a. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31:124–130.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983b. Effect of water quality, carrier volume, and acid on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 31:163–169.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1992. Rationale for developing herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 6:621–625.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- and three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:174–185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:324–333.Google Scholar
Dastgheib, F., Field, R. J., and Namjou, S. 1994. The mechanism of differential response of wheat cultivars to chlorsulfuron. Weed Res. 34:299–308.Google Scholar
Deeds, Z. A., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Stahlman, P. W. 2006. Wheat response to simulated drift of glyphosate and imazamox applied at two growth stages. Weed Technol. 20:23–31.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Jones, C. A. 2002. Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., Linscombe, S. D., and Webster, E. P. 2003. Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 17:452–460.Google Scholar
Ghosheh, H. Z., Chandler, J. M., and Bierman, R. H. 1994. Impact of DPX-PE350 drift on corn and grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:24.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol. 9:380–384.Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H., Owen, M. D. K., and Christians, N. E. 1995. Comparison of spray drift during postemergence herbicide applications to turfgrass. Weed Technol. 9:321–325.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interaction of herbicides with other agricultural chemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–64.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 39:622–628.Google Scholar
Roider, C. A., Griffin, J. L., Harrison, S. A., and Jones, C. A. 2002. Wheat response to Roundup drift. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:24.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5:493–498.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40:106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Phillips, W. M. 1979. Effects of water quality and spray volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 27:38–41.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541–548.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., editor. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Pages 231–234.Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci. 42:110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Richard, E. P., and Hurst, H. R. 1982. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa). II. Arsenic residues in foliage and grain and relationships between arsenic residues, rice toxicity symptoms, and yields. Weed Sci. 30:405–410.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Nordquist, P. T., and Schmidt, J. W. 1987. Response of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) to herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:259–262.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1992. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. in The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Pages 29–52.Regina, SK, Canada Agriculture Canada Research Station.Google Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future impact of crops with modified herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 6:665–668.Google Scholar