Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:20:24.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diurnal Leaf Movement Effects on Spray Interception and Glyphosate Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy,
Lawrence R. Oliver and
Larry C. Purcell
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Larry C. Purcell
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jnorswo@comp.uark.edu.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Time of day at which a herbicide is applied can affect efficacy, and variability may be attributed to leaf angles at application. Spray interception by hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa) under day and night conditions was quantified by measuring interception of a 2-M potassium nitrate solution. Following the night application, interception by prickly sida, hemp sesbania, and sicklepod was reduced 17, 67, and 70%, respectively. In a second study in the greenhouse, glyphosate was applied to hemp sesbania, pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa), prickly sida, and sicklepod at 6:00 and 11:00 A.M. and 4:00 and 9:00 P.M. Control of all species was dependent on the time of day treated, with night applications generally being less effective.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinehemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Rydb. ex A. W. Hill # SEBEXpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. # CASOBBiological rhythmscircadianCASOBIPOLASEBEXSIDSPDAT, days after treatment

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999, pp. 466 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1979. Rhythmic leaf movements of some common weeds. Weed Sci. 27:401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Crop Protection Reference. New York: C&P Press, Inc. 2,304 p.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C. and Coupland, D. 1985. Environmental and plant factors affecting glyphosate uptake, movement and activity. In Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Thetford, Norfolk: Butter-worth & Co. pp. 92–123.Google Scholar
Cataldo, D. A., Haroon, M., Schrader, L. E., and Youngs, V. L. 1975. Rapid colorimetric determination of nitrate in plant tissue by nitration of salicylic acid. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 6:71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, D. L. and Andersen, R. N. 1976. Effectiveness of bentazon applied at various times of the day. Weed Sci. 24:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, G. P. 1984. Nastic movements. In Wilkins, M. B., ed. Advanced Plant Physiology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 186–200.Google Scholar
Gosselink, J. G. and Standifer, L. C. 1967. Diurnal rhythms of sensitivity of cotton seedlings to herbicides. Science 158:120–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gossett, B. J. and Rieck, C. E. 1970. Performance of chloroxuron as influenced by spray additives, spray volumes, and early morning versus late afternoon applications. Proc. South. Weed Sci. 23:163.Google Scholar
Hoshizaki, T. and Hamner, K. C. 1964. Circadian leaf movements: persistence in bean plants grown in continuous high-intensity light. Science 144:1240–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, T. N. 1977. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on the toxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 25:448–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods for application. Weed Sci. 520–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Azlin, W. R. 1978. Effects of environment on the toxicity of glyphosate to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:605–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, R. L. and Galston, A. W. 1981. Mechanisms of control of leaf movements. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 32:83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satter, R. L., Geballe, G. T., Applewhite, P. B., and Galston, A. W. 1974. Potassium flux and leaf movement in Samanea saman. 1. Rhythmic movement. J. Gen. Physiol. 64:413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skuterud, R., Bjugstad, N., Tyldum, A., and Semb Torresen, K. 1998. Effect of herbicides applied at different times of the day. Crop Prot. 17:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for the hard-water antagonsim of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, M. L. and Nylund, R. E. 1963. Factors influencing the tolerance of peas to MCPA. Weeds 11:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar