Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-x2lbt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T23:22:00.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grass Herbicide Efficacy as Influenced by Adjuvant, Spray Solution pH, and Ultraviolet Light

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Patrick M. McMullan
Patrick M. McMullan*
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada Res Ctr., P.O. Box 1000A, RR #3, Brandon, MB, Canada, R7A 5Y3
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted at the Brandon Research Centre to determine the effect of spray solution pH or adjuvants on the efficacy of two cyclohexanedione (CHD) herbicides, clethodim and tralkoxydim, and two aryloxyphenoxypropionate (APP) herbicides, fenoxaprop-P and quizalofop, and if ultraviolet light is a factor influencing their activity. CHD herbicide efficacy decreased as spray solution pH increased above 7. APP herbicide efficacy was not affected by spray solution pH, probably due to their formulation as proherbicide esters. The choice of adjuvant affected CHD herbicide efficacy but not APP herbicide efficacy. Amigo®, Canplus-411® plus ammonium sulfate, and Merge® were usually the most effective adjuvants with the two CHD herbicides. Physical removal of ultraviolet light did not improve APP herbicide efficacy but did improve CHD herbicide efficacy.

Keywords

Clethodim, (E,E)-(±)-2-[1-[[(3-chloro-2-propenyl)oxy]imino]-propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-onefenoxaprop-P, (R)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidquizalofop, (±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidtralkoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-]hydroxy-5-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)cyclohex-2-enone, barley, Hordeum vulgare L. #3 HORVXoat, Avena sativa L. # AVESAClethodimfenoxaprop-PquizalofoptralkoxydimAvena sativaHordeum vulgareAVESAHORVX

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996, pp. 72 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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

1. Beckett, T. H., Stoller, E. W., and Bode, L. E. 1992. Quizalofop and sethoxydim activity as affected by adjuvants and ammonium fertilizers, Weed Sci. 40:12–19.Google Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C. 1989. Adjuvant and pH effects on sethoxydim and clethodim activityon rhizome Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol, 3:615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1992. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:574–583.Google Scholar
4. Bukovac, M. J., Sargent, J. A., Powell, R. G., and Blackman, G. E. 1971. Studies on foliar penetration. VII. Effects of chlorination on the movements of phenoxyacetic and benzoic acids through cuticles isolated from the fruits of Lycopersicon esculentum L. J. Exp. Bot. 22:598–612.Google Scholar
5. Campbell, J. R. and Penner, D. 1985. Abiotic transformation of sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 33:435–439.Google Scholar
6. Chow, P.N.P. 1983. Herbicide mixtures containing BAS 9052 for weed control in flax (Linum usitatissimum). Weed Sci. 31:20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Falb, L. N., Bridges, D. C., and Smith, A. E. Jr. 1990. Effect of pH and adjuvants on clethodim photodegradation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38:875–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Marker, K. N. 1992. Effects of various adjuvants on sethoxydim activity. Weed Technol. 6:865–870.Google Scholar
9. Harrison, S. K. and Wax, L. M. 1985. The effect of adjuvants and oil carriers on photodecomposition of 2,4-D, bentazon, and haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 34:81–87.Google Scholar
10. Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., and Bode, L. E. 1986. Influence of adjuvants and application variables on postemergence weed control with bentazon and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 34:462–466.Google Scholar
11. Hazen, J. L. and Krebs, P. J. 1992. Photodegradation and absorption of sethoxydim as adjuvant-influenced surface effects, p. 195–203 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
12. Manthey, F. A., Nalewaja, J. D., and Szelezniak, E. 1989. Esterified seed oils with herbicides. p. 139–148 in Chow, P.N.P., Grant, C. A., Hinshalwood, A. M., and Simundsson, E., ed. Adjuvants and Agrochemicals. Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
13. Manthey, F. A., Szelezniak, E. F., Anyszka, Z. M., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Foliar absorption and phytotoxicity of quizalofop with lipid compounds. Weed Sci. 40:558–562.Google Scholar
14. McInnes, D., Marker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1992. The influence of ultraviolet light on the phytotoxicity of sethoxydim tank mixtures with various adjuvants. p. 205–213 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. CRC Press, Boca Raton. FL.Google Scholar
15. McMullan, P. M. 1994. Effect of sodium bicarbonate on clethodim or quizalofop efficacy and the role of ultraviolet light. Weed Technol. 8:572–575.Google Scholar
16. Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Szelezniak, E. 1994. Sethoxydim response to spray carrier chemical properties and environment. Weed Technol. 8:591–597.Google Scholar
17. Nalewaja, J. D., Skrzypczak, G. A., and Gillespie, G. R. 1986. Absorption and translocation of herbicides with lipid compounds. Weed Sci. 34:564–568.Google Scholar
18. Schott, J. J., Dufour, J. L., and Gauvrit, C. 1991. Effects of adjuvants on herbicidal action. III. Effects of petroleum and rapeseed oils on diclofop-methyl action on ryegrass. Agronomie 11:27–34.Google Scholar
19. Smith, A. M. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1992. Ammonium sulphate increases efficacy of sethoxydim through increased absorption and translocation. Weed Sci. 40:351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wanamarta, G., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1989. Identification of efficacious adjuvants for sethoxydim and bentazon. Weed Technol. 3:60–66.Google Scholar