Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:22:58.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Stephen A. Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Curtis A. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate at simulated drift rates representing 12.5, 6.3, and 1.6% of the usage rate of 1,120 g ai/ha (140, 70, and 18 g/ha, respectively) was applied to wheat at first node, boot stage, or at early flowering. At 14 d after treatment (DAT) wheat injury, expressed as bleaching of leaf foliage and growth inhibition, was 40 to 55% for 70 g/ha applied at first node and for 140 g/ha applied at all growth stages. Wheat height 28 DAT was reduced 47% with glyphosate applied at 140 g/ha at first node and was reduced around 26% for 70 g/ha applied at first node and 140 g/ha applied at boot stage. Wheat height was not reduced with glyphosate at 18 g/ha applied at first node or boot stage and with all rates applied at early flowering. Wheat yield was reduced 72% when glyphosate was applied at 140 g/ha at first node, 45% when applied at boot stage, and 54% when applied at early flowering. For 70 g/ha, wheat yield was reduced 25 to 30% for the three application timings. Wheat yield was not reduced for 18 g/ha glyphosate. In another study, six wheat varieties responded the same to glyphosate applied at 140 and 70 g/ha. Wheat height 28 DAT was reduced an average of 34% for 140 g/ha glyphosate and 17% for 70 g/ha applied at first node, but height was not reduced when applied at early flowering. Yield was reduced an average of 58 and 43% for 140 and 70 g/ha applied at first node and 38 and 19% for 140 and 70 g/ha applied at early flowering. In both studies yield reductions in most cases were reflected in reduced spike density, spikelet number per spike, and seed weight.

Keywords

Glyphosatewheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Coker 9663’, ‘Mason’, ‘LA 422’, ‘AGS 2000’, ‘Pioneer/26R61’, and ‘USG 3209’Crop injuryherbicide driftoff-target movementwheat yield components

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 1010 - 1015
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
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:740–745.Google Scholar
Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Merkle, M. G. 1976. Spray recovery from nozzles designed to reduce drift. Weed Sci. 24:361–365.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.CrossRefGoogle 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., 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant adjuvants 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
Martin, J. R. and Green, J. D. 1995. Herbicide drift—a growing concern in Kentucky. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:204.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246. in. Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC SAS Institute.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
W.K. Vencill, ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 231–234.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pages 29–52. in. The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Regina, SK Agriculture Canada.Google Scholar