Off-Target Movement of Diglycolamine Dicamba to Non-dicamba Soybean Using Practices to Minimize Primary Drift

Jones, Gordon T.; Norsworthy, Jason K.; Barber, Tom

doi:10.1017/wet.2018.90

Cited by 25 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondary dicamba movement via volatility is well documented (Behrens and Lueschen 1979;Egan et al 2014;Egan and Mortensen 2012;Jones et al 2019a;Sall et al 2020;Sciumbato et al 2004a;Soltani et al 2020) and may have been the culprit of some nontarget injury complaints over the 2017 through 2019 growing seasons. The seminal paper on dicamba volatility was published in 1979, reporting secondary movement from applications of dimethylamine (DMA) salt of dicamba in corn under field conditions in Minnesota (Behrens and Lueschen 1979).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spray solution pH and soybean injury as influenced by synthetic auxin formulation and spray additives

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of synthetic auxin herbicides has increased across the United States Midwest following adoption of synthetic auxin-resistant soybean traits in addition to extensive use of these herbicides in corn. Off-target movement of synthetic auxin herbicides such as dicamba can lead to severe injury to sensitive plants nearby. Previous research has documented effects of glyphosate on spray solution pH and volatility of several dicamba formulations, but our understanding of the relationships between glyphosate and dicamba formulations commonly used in corn and for 2,4-D remains limited. The objectives of this research were to i) investigate the roles of synthetic auxin herbicide formulation, glyphosate and spray additives on spray solution pH, ii) assess the impact of synthetic auxin herbicide rate on solution pH, and iii) assess the influence of glyphosate and application time of year on dicamba and 2,4-D volatility using soybean as bioindicators in low-tunnel field volatility experiments. Addition of glyphosate to a synthetic auxin herbicide decreased solution pH below 5.0 for four of the seven herbicides tested (initial pH of water source = 7.45 to 7.70). Solution pH of most treatments was lower at a higher application rate (4× the labeled POST rate) than the 1× rate. Among all treatment factors, inclusion of glyphosate was the most important affecting spray solution pH; however, the addition of glyphosate did not influence Area Under the Injury over Distance Stairs (AUIDS; p=0.366) in low-tunnel field volatility experiments. Greater soybean injury in field experiments was associated with high air temperatures (maximum >29 C) and low wind speeds (mean 0.3 to 1.5 m s-1) during the 48-h period following treatment application. The two dicamba formulations (diglycolamine with VaporGrip® and sodium salts) showed similar levels of soybean injury for applications that occurred later in the growing season. Greater soybean injury was observed for dicamba than 2,4-D treatments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spray solution pH and soybean injury as influenced by synthetic auxin formulation and spray additives

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Off-target movement of herbicides is defined as the unintended airborne movement of particles to a non-targeted area after an application has been made to a specific area [17]. Off-target movement of dicamba can occur from volatility and primary drift [18,19]. Movement of herbicide particles to off-target sites are common when environmental conditions, such as temperature and wind, favor volatilization and/or primary drift [17,20].…”

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

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

“…These results suggest that although non‐DT soybeans are very sensitive to dicamba‐containing formulations (Griffin et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012; Jones, Norsworthy, Barber, Gbur, & Kruger, 2019b; Jones et al., 2019a; Olsysk, Pfleeger, Lee, & Plocher, 2015; Werle et al., 2018), their level of symptomology depends on the cultivar and may vary according to the formulation. Visual estimation of injury was not evaluated in this study because it provides subjective results that depend on the rater's experience.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Pesticide off‐target movement may occur at the time of application (primary movement) as spray particle drift and after the application (secondary movement) as vapor drift and wind erosion of soil particles to which the herbicide is attached (Chang, Simcik, & Capel, 2011; Jones, Norsworthy, & Barber, 2019a). Spray particle drift is directly influenced by boom height, pressure, droplet size, wind speed and direction, temperature, and relative humidity (Alves et al., 2017a; Bueno, Cunha, & Santana, 2017; Maybank, Yoshida, & Grover, 1974, 1978; Nordby & Skurterud, 1974; Threadgill & Smith, 1975), whereas vapor drift is highly dependent on herbicide formulation and environmental conditions (Egan & Mortensen, 2012; Mueller, Wright, & Remund, 2013), specifically temperature and humidity.…”

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

Off-Target Movement of Diglycolamine Dicamba to Non-dicamba Soybean Using Practices to Minimize Primary Drift

Cited by 25 publications

References 27 publications

Spray solution pH and soybean injury as influenced by synthetic auxin formulation and spray additives

Spray solution pH and soybean injury as influenced by synthetic auxin formulation and spray additives

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About