Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:34:32.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Drift Control Agents to Reduce Short Distance Movement and Effect on Herbicide Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark J. Vangessel and
Quintin R. Johnson
Mark J. Vangessel*
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Science Department, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 19947
Quintin R. Johnson
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Science Department, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 19947
*
Corresponding author's: E-mail: mjv@udel.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spray drift to unintended areas is more of a concern as applications of nonselective herbicides associated with herbicide-resistant crops and the proximity of residential land to agricultural land increase. This research evaluated the benefit of three commercial drift control agents for effectiveness in reducing drift in 19 to 24 km/h wind and their potential effect on weed control. The drift control agents were added to a spray mixture of glyphosate at 0.8 kg ae/ha applied in 140 L/ ha and applied with either flat-fan or flood nozzles. None of the drift control agents reduced drift compared with the spray mixture without drift control agent over a distance of 6 m, as measured by water-sensitive cards or grain sorghum bioassay, regardless of nozzle type used. In a separate study, drift control agents did not reduce the weed control of glyphosate or acifluorfen.

Keywords

Acifluorfenglyphosategrain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) MoenchAdjuvantsbioassaycrop injuryflat-fan nozzlesflood nozzlesGlycine max, off-site movement, soybean, spray driftWSwater sensitive

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005, pp. 78 - 85
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., Claassen, M. M., Stahlman, P. W., Geier, P. W., Regehr, D. L., Duncan, S. R., and Heer, W. F. 2003. Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 17:261–265.Google Scholar
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
Apodaca, M. A., Sanderson, R., Huddleston, E. W., Clason, D. L., Hewitt, A. J., Ledson, T. M., Ross, J. B., and Ortiz, M. 1996. Drift control polymers and formulation type affect volumetric droplet size spectra of propanil sprays. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 31:859–870.Google Scholar
[ASTM] American Society for Testing and Materials. 1998. Standard Terminology Relating to Agricultural Tank Mix Adjuvants. E1519-95. in Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 11.05. West Conshokocken, PA: ASTM. Pp. 905–906.Google 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
Ekins, W. L., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1970. Influence of three drift control adjuvants on volatility, adherence, and efficacy of herbicides. Weed Sci. 18:505–508.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 glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:587–592.Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Spray Drift of Pesticides. EPA Publication 735F99024. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. Pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Feng, P. C. C., Chiu, T., Sammons, R. D., and Ryerse, J. S. 2003. Droplet size affects glyphosate retention, absorption, and translocation in corn. Weed Sci. 51:443–448.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Foy, C. L. 2000. Adjuvants: test designs, interpretation, and presentation of results. Weed Technol. 14:819–825.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
Hattermanvalenti, 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
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.Google Scholar
Kurtz, M. E. and Street, J. E. 2003. Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to glyphosate applied in simulated drift. Weed Technol. 17:234–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S. H., Campbell, R. A., Students, J. A., and Wagner, R. G. 1996. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in aspen (Populus tremuloides), as influenced by droplet size, droplet number and herbicide concentration. Weed Sci. 44:482–488.Google Scholar
McMullen, P. M. 1995. Effect of spray volume, spray pressure and adjuvant volume on efficacy of sethoxydim and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl. Crop Prot 14:549–554.Google Scholar
McMullen, P. M. 2000. Utility adjuvants. Weed Technol. 14:792–797.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Womac, A. R. 1997. Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:639–643.Google Scholar
Nordbo, E., Steensen, J. K., and Kirknel, E. 1995. Deposition and efficacy of herbicide sprays in sugar beet with twin-fluid, low drift and conventional hydraulic nozzles. Crop Prot 14:237–240.Google Scholar
Ozkan, H. E., Reichard, D. R., and Zhu, H. 1994. Influence of drift retardant chemicals on spray droplet size, pattern and drift. Acta Hortic 372:25–32.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2001a. Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol. 15:453–460.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2001b. Nozzle, spray volume, and adjuvant effects on carfentrazone and imazamox efficacy. Weed Technol. 15:485–491.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. 1991. Chemical vine desiccation of two potato cultivars. Am. Potato J 68:479–491.Google Scholar
Sanderson, R., Hewitt, A. J., Huddleston, E. W., and Ross, J. B. 1994. Polymer and invert emulsifying oil effects upon droplet size spectra of sprays. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 29:815–829.Google Scholar
Smith, D. B., Bode, L. E., and Gerard, P. D. 2000. Predicting ground boom spray drift. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 43:547–553.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in full-season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15:714–724.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Johnson, Q. R., and Scott, B. A. 2004. Surfactants: a can of worms. Abstr. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 58:17.Google Scholar