Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:45:46.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diurnal Fluctuations and Leaf Angle Reduce Glufosinate Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brent A. Sellers,
Reid J. Smeda and
William G. Johnson
Brent A. Sellers
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, 210 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, 210 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO 65211
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Missouri, 210 Waters Hall, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: smedar@missouri.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Velvetleaf plants have diurnal leaf movements, which may result in decreased interception of herbicides when applications are made near sunset. However, it is not known if leaf angle alone accounts for diurnal fluctuations in efficacy. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to determine the effect of time of day (TOD) of application and velvetleaf leaf angle on glufosinate efficacy and spray interception. Glufosinate at 90, 180, and 360 g ai/ha was applied to 10-cm-tall plants at 4:00, 6:00, 7:00, 7:30, and 8:00 P.M., respectively. Leaf angles were either manipulated physically to −90° or the plant's natural 2:00 P.M. leaf angle (approximately −10°) or were allowed to exhibit their natural leaf movements. Plant dry weight 3 wk after treatment revealed that TOD effects were observed for all leaf angle treatments after glufosinate application at 90 g/ha. At 180 g/ha glufosinate, there was no TOD effect for plants with 2 P.M. leaf angles, whereas there was a TOD effect for plants with −90° and natural leaf angles. At 360 g/ha glufosinate, biomass for the −90° leaf angle plants was similar to that for the natural and the 2:00 P.M. leaf angle plants when glufosinate was applied at 4:00 P.M. but was significantly different at or after 6:00 P.M. This suggests that at least 4 h of light is needed to provide optimum herbicide activity when spray interception is reduced as a result of leaf movements. Leaf angle decreased by as much as 70% from 4:00 to 8:00 P.M., which resulted in approximately 50% less spray interception at 8:00 P.M. than at 4:00 P.M. These data provide evidence that leaf angle plays a pivotal role in reducing glufosinate efficacy when applications are made near sundown. However, leaf angle is not the sole reason for reduced efficacy because TOD effects were observed at different leaf angles with 4 h of light, after an application of 360 g/ha glufosinate.

Keywords

Glufosinatevelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus #3 ABUTHApplication timingglufosinateherbicide interceptiontime of dayGS, glutamine synthetasePOST, postemergenceTOD, time of dayWAT, weeks after treatment

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003, pp. 302 - 306
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

Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26: 393–395.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Missouri Farm Facts. Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service. 67 p.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T. 1999. Influence of Light on Glufosinate Efficacy. M.S. thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. pp. 26–82.Google Scholar
Bjork, K. L., Durgan, B. R., Gunsolus, J. L., and Koukkari, W. L. 2000. The effect of time of day and adjuvant on annual weed control with glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 40: 139.Google Scholar
Cánovas, F. M., Concepción, A., Botella, J. R., Valpuesta, V., and Núñez de Castro, I. 1986. Effect of light-dark transition on glutamine synthetase activity in tomato leaves. Physiol. Plant. 66: 648–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirel, B. and Gadal, P. 1982. Glutamine synthetase in a C4 plant: Sorghum vulgare L. Physiol. Plant. 54: 69–74.Google Scholar
Hirel, B., Perrot-Rechenmann, C., Suzuki, A., Vidal, J., and Gadal, P. 1982. Glutamine synthetase in spinach leaves. Immunological studies and immuno-cytochemical localization. Plant Physiol. 69: 983–987.Google Scholar
Jansen, C., Schuphan, I., and Schmidt, B. 2000. Glufosinate metabolism in excised shoots and leaves of twenty plant species. Weed Sci. 48: 319–326.Google Scholar
Köcher, H. 1983. Influence of the light factor on physiological effects of the herbicide Hoe 39866. Asp. Appl. Biol. 4: 227–234.Google Scholar
Mann, A. F., Fentem, P. A., and Stewart, G. R. 1979. Identification of two forms of glutamine synthetase in barley (Hordeum vulgare L). Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 88: 515–521.Google Scholar
McNally, S. F., Hirel, B., Gadal, P., Mann, A. F., and Stewart, G. R. 1983. Glutamine synthetases of higher plants. Plant Physiol. 72: 22–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, R. P., Durgan, B. R., and Miller, D. 2000. Effect of time of day of application upon efficacy of chlorimuron ethyl and fomesafen. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 60.Google Scholar
Mohr, J. K. and Smeda, R. J. 2001. Time of day effect on glyphosate efficacy. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 56: 60.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliver, L. R., and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Diurnal leaf movement effects on spray interception and glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 13: 466–470.Google Scholar
Petersen, R. G. 1994. Agricultural Field Experiments: Design and Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 205–260.Google Scholar
Prasad, R., Foy, C. L., and Crafts, A. S. 1967. Effects of relative humidity on absorption and translocation of foliarly applied dalapon. Weeds 15: 149–156.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips II, W. H. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.Google Scholar
Toole, E. H. and Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the buried seed experiment. J. Agric. Res. 72: 201–210.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 90. Abutilon theophrasti . Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 1069–1085.Google Scholar
Wild, A. and Manderscheid, R. 1984. The effects of phosphinothricin on the assimilation of ammonia in plants. Z. Naturforsch. 39: 500–504.Google Scholar
Wild, A., Sauer, H., and Ruhle, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis I. Inhibition of photosynthesis and accumulation of ammonia. Z. Naturforsch. 42: 263–269.Google Scholar