Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:14:28.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adjuvants: Test Design, Interpretation, and Presentation of Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jerry M. Green and
Chester L. Foy
Jerry M. Green*
Affiliation:
DuPont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, Newark, DE 19714-0030
Chester L. Foy
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jerry.m.green@usa.dupont.com.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adjuvant research contributes much to the knowledge and practice of weed science though the scientific process of systematically asking precise questions and subsequently making distinctions among alternative explanations. The purpose of adjuvant experimentation is to answer these questions and the purpose of associated papers and presentations is to communicate the new information. These purposes are self-evident, but are difficult to perfect. Some factors are particularly difficult for adjuvant researchers and require that researchers plan thoroughly from the formulation of the experimental question to final presentation of results. Adjuvant research requires both chemical and biological expertise that is traditionally separated in most organizations. Scientists from other disciplines or weed scientists not primarily concerned with adjuvants often direct adjuvant studies. This paper discusses mistakes that are commonly made in test design, interpretation, and presentation and suggests guidelines to improve the quality of adjuvant research.

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2000, pp. 819 - 825
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

Barnard, C. J., Gilbert, F. S., and McGregor, P. K. 1993. Asking Questions in Biology: Design, Analysis, and Presentation in Practical Work. Essex, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical. 157 p.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. P. 1998. Presentations. Holbrook, MA: Adams Media. 210 p.Google Scholar
Bryan-Jones, J. and Finney, D. J. 1983. On an error in ‘Instructions to authors’. Hortic. Sci. 18: 272–282.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28: 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, R. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. 653 p.Google Scholar
Gaskin, R. E. and Stevens, P.J.G. 1993. Antagonism of the foliar uptake of glyphosate into grasses by organosilicone surfactants. Part 1. Effects of plants species, formulation, concentrations and timing of application. Pestic. Sci. 38: 185–192.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 7: 633–640.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1996. Interaction of surfactant dose and spray volume on rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 10: 508–511.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1999. Optimizing alcohol ethoxylate surfactant activity at low doses. Weed Technol. 13: 737–740.Google Scholar
Hazen, J. L. 2000. Adjuvants—terminology, classification, and chemistry. Weed Technol. 14: 773–784.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. 1998. A Compendium of Herbicide Adjuvants, 4th ed. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University, p. 58.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, R. C. 1999. Recent developments in our understanding of the plant cuticle as a barrier to the foliar uptake of pesticides. Pestic. Sci. 55: 69–77.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Mathiassen, S. K. 1995. Nonyl polyethoxylates as adjuvants for metsulfuron and tribenuron. In Gaskin, R. E., ed. Proc. of the Fourth Int. Symp. on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotura: New Zealand Forest Research Institute. pp. 350–355.Google Scholar
Little, T. M. 1981. Interpretation and presentation of results. Hortic. Sci. 16: 637–640.Google Scholar
Monsen, E. R. and Cheney, C. L. 1988. Research methods in nutrition and dietetics: Design, data analysis, and presentation. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 9: 1047–1065.Google Scholar
Reeves, R. 1998. The use of adjuvants as tank-mix additions vs. adjuvants included in pesticide formulations. Greeley, CO: Loveland Industries, Technical Bulletin, 6 p.Google Scholar
Schönherr, J. 1993. Effects of monodisperse alcohol ethoxylates on mobility of 2,4-D in isolated plant cuticles. Pestic. Sci. 38: 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, D. and Briggs, G. C. 2000. Physicochemical properties of adjuvants: Values and applications. Weed Technol. 14: 798–806.Google Scholar
U.S. Government. 1987. Inert ingredients in pesticide products; policy statement. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Subchapter E, Part 180, Subpart D-180.1001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 5 p.Google Scholar