Glyphosate‐Resistant Soybean Response to Micro‐Rates of Three Dicamba‐Based Herbicides

Osipitan, O. Adewale; Scott, Jon E.; Knežević, Stevan Z.

doi:10.2134/age2018.10.0052

Cited by 22 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dimethylamine (DMA) salts are known to be the most volatile, while diglycolamine (DGA) salts are less volatile [4]. The newest additions to the benzoic acid family consist of a DGA salt of dicamba with the trade name XtendiMax ® (Bayer CropScience LP, 800 Lindbergh Blvd., Saint Louis, MO, USA) and an (N,N-bis-(3-aminopropyl) methylamine salt) (BAPMA) salt of dicamba with the trade name Engenia ® (BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) [5]. While DGA and BAPMA salts are less volatile than their DMA predecessor, they can still volatilize [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, various formulations of dicamba have been approved for use in DR soybean cultivars [5]. Applications of dicamba made in proximity to peanut can cause injury and reduce yield [5,30,31]. Therefore, a field study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to evaluate peanut response to low rates of dicamba at three reproductive growth stages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Peanut (Arachis hypogea) Response to Low Rates of Dicamba at Reproductive Growth Stages

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tank contamination and off-target movement of dicamba is a probable issue facing peanut producers in Mississippi. In 2017 and 2018, a field study was conducted at Mississippi State University’s Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi, to evaluate the response of peanut to low rates of dicamba at three growth stages. Dicamba at 35 and 17.5 g ae ha−1 with and without non-ionic surfactant (NIS) was applied to peanut at R1 (beginning bloom), R2 (beginning peg), and R3 (beginning pod). In each site year, peanut injury was visible following exposure to dicamba. Peanut lateral growth was also reduced regardless of treatment or growth stage following exposure to dicamba. Peanut injury was most prominent 14 days following exposure to dicamba, regardless of timing in both site years. Peanut yield was not different following dicamba treatments in 2018 due to late-season environmental conditions. In 2017, dicamba at 1/32 X plus NIS, 1/16 X and 1/16 X plus NIS reduced peanut yield 16%, 16%, and 30% when averaged over growth stage, respectively. Based on this study, visible peanut injury, lateral growth reduction, and yield decreases were observed following exposure to dicamba.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peanut (Arachis hypogea) Response to Low Rates of Dicamba at Reproductive Growth Stages

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Osipitan et al. (2019) showed that three dicamba‐containing formulations (BAPMA, DGA, and DGAvg) equally reduced the yield of non‐DT soybean (cv. Pioneer P24T19R).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extent and severity of a drift event is a result of complex factors including spray application parameters, environmental conditions, herbicide formulation and rate, crop growth stage, and crop sensitivity (Heidary, Douglaz, Sinfort, & Vallet, 2014; Lofstrom et al., 2013). Numerous research studies investigated how soybean symptomology and yield reduction are correlated to crop growth stage during drift exposure events (Auch & Arnold, 1978; Griffin, Bauerle, Stephenson, Miller, & Boudreaux, 2013; Kelly et al., 2005; Osipitan, Scott, & Knezevic, 2019; Solomon & Bradley, 2014; Thompson & Egli, 1973; Wax et al., 1969). However, few of these studies have provided results pertaining to the differences in herbicide sensitivity across cultivars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tank contamination and simulated drift effects of dicamba‐containing formulations on soybean cultivars

Alves

Vieira

Ynfante

et al. 2020

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to (a) investigate the spray drift potential of dicamba (3,6‐dichloro‐2‐methoxybenzoic acid) formulations with different nozzles in a low‐speed wind tunnel and (b) evaluate the effects of sublethal rates of dicamba‐containing formulations on non–dicamba‐tolerant (DT) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars. The dicamba formulations used were diglycolamine (DGA), N,N‐Bis‐(3‐aminopropyl)methylamine, and diglycolamine with VaporGrip (DGAvg). The wind tunnel drift study was conducted with these three dicamba formulations, two nozzle types (AIXR110015 and TTI110015), and five downwind distances from the nozzle (1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 m). The dicamba rate was 560 g ae ha−1, simulating a 140 L ha−1 carrier volume. The soybean exposure study was conducted in two experimental runs with three sublethal dicamba rates (0.112, 0.56, and 5.6 g ae ha−1), the three dicamba formulations aforementioned, and five non‐DT soybean cultivars (Asgrow A3253, Asgrow AG2636, Credenz CZ2601LL, DynaGro 39RY25, and Hoegemeyer 2511NRR). Applications were made using a spray chamber with a single AI9502EVS even nozzle that delivered 140 L ha−1. During applications, soybean plants were at three‐leaf growth stage. Dicamba formulations had different drift deposition across the AIXR and TTI nozzles. The soybean cultivars had different levels of sensitivity to dicamba and depended on rate vs. formulation interaction. The DGA caused greater biomass reduction on soybean cultivars compared with DGAvg, especially for Credenz CZ2601LL, which was one of the most dicamba‐sensitive cultivars along with Hoegemeyer 2511NRR. Additional care must be taken to mitigate off‐target movement from dicamba applications with these cultivars nearby.

show abstract

“…However, there is potential for off-target movement that may result in damage to other adjacent, sensitive broadleaf plants. Although injury from low rates or simulated drift rates of several herbicides has been reported in many crops, dicamba and 2,4-D drift are of particular concern due to great potential of crop injury [49][50][51][52]. Plant response to these PGR herbicides is easily recognized as leaf cupping and crinkling and/or epinasty, and very low rates of herbicide may cause injury in susceptible plants [53].…”

Section: New Herbicide Trait Technologies and Developing Environmentamentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Challenges for Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Crops

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since weed management is such a critical component of agronomic crop production systems, herbicides are widely used to provide weed control to ensure that yields are maximized. In the last few years, herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, particularly those that are glyphosate-resistant, and more recently, those with dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) and 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) resistance are changing the way many growers manage weeds. However, past reliance on glyphosate and mistakes made in stewardship of the glyphosate-resistant cropping system have directly led to the current weed resistance problems that now occur in many agronomic cropping systems, and new technologies must be well-stewarded. New herbicide-resistant trait technologies in soybean, such as dicamba-, 2,4-D-, and isoxaflutole- ((5-cyclopropyl-4-isoxazolyl)[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]methanone) resistance, are being combined with glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistance traits to manage herbicide-resistant weed populations. In cropping systems with glyphosate-resistant weed species, these new trait options may provide effective weed management tools, although there may be increased risk of off-target movement and susceptible plant damage with the use of some of these technologies. The use of diverse weed management practices to reduce the selection pressure for herbicide-resistant weed evolution is essential to preserve the utility of new traits. The use of herbicides with differing sites of action (SOAs), ideally in combination as mixtures, but also in rotation as part of a weed management program may slow the evolution of resistance in some cases. Increased selection pressure from the effects of some herbicide mixtures may lead to more cases of metabolic herbicide resistance. The most effective long-term approach for weed resistance management is the use of Integrated Weed Management (IWM) which may build the ecological complexity of the cropping system. Given the challenges in management of herbicide-resistant weeds, IWM will likely play a critical role in enhancing future food security for a growing global population.

show abstract

Glyphosate‐Resistant Soybean Response to Micro‐Rates of Three Dicamba‐Based Herbicides

Cited by 22 publications

References 22 publications

Peanut (Arachis hypogea) Response to Low Rates of Dicamba at Reproductive Growth Stages

Peanut (Arachis hypogea) Response to Low Rates of Dicamba at Reproductive Growth Stages

Tank contamination and simulated drift effects of dicamba‐containing formulations on soybean cultivars

Emerging Challenges for Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About