Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean to dicamba spray tank contamination during vegetative and reproductive growth stages

Soltani, Nader; Nurse, Robert E.; Sikkema, Peter H.

doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0175

Cited by 26 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, increased off-target movement and resultant injury to susceptible soybean have been reported since the introduction of resistant cultivars (EPA 2017). Spray drift, vapor drift, sprayer contamination, and misapplication have been identified as common modes of off-target 2,4-D and dicamba movement to susceptible soybean (Behrens and Lueschen 1979;Cundiff et al 2017;Egan and Mortensen 2012;Grover et al 1972;Johnson et al 2012;Soltani et al 2016;Steckel et al 2010;Strachan et al 2013). In addition, it has been speculated that injury symptoms from 2,4-D and dicamba, which are unique and conspicuous, even after low-dose exposure, are reported more often than off-target movement of other herbicides, because they are more easily recognized (Sciumbato et al 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of soybean growth stage on sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba and 2,4-D

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments were conducted in 2012 and 2013 across four locations for a total of 6 site-years in the midsouthern United States to determine the effect of growth stage at exposure on soybean sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba (8.8 g ae ha−1) and 2,4-D (140 g ae ha−1). Regression analysis revealed that soybean was most susceptible to injury from 2,4-D when exposed between 413 and 1,391 accumulated growing degree days (GDD) from planting, approximately between V1 and R2 growth stages. In terms of terminal plant height, soybean was most susceptible to 2,4-D between 448 and 1,719 GDD, or from V1 to R4. However, maximum susceptibility to 2,4-D was only between 624 and 1,001 GDD or from V3 to V5 for yield loss. As expected, soybean was sensitive to dicamba for longer spans of time, ranging from 0 to 1,162 GDD for visible injury or from emergence to R2. Likewise, soybean height was most affected when dicamba exposure occurred between 847 and 1,276 GDD or from V4 to R2. Regarding grain yield, soybean was most susceptible to dicamba between 820 and 1,339 GDD or from V4 to R2. Consequently, these data indicate that soybean response to 2,4-D and dicamba can be variable within vegetative or reproductive growth stages; therefore, specific growth stage at the time of exposure should be considered when evaluating injury from off-target movement. In addition, application of dicamba near susceptible soybean within the V4 to R2 growth stages should be avoided because this is the time of maximum susceptibility. Research regarding soybean sensitivity to 2,4-D and dicamba should focus on multiple exposure times and also avoid generalizing growth stages to vegetative or reproductive.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of soybean growth stage on sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba and 2,4-D

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Proper decision-making by herbicide applicators will be more essential than ever to minimize the risk of these herbicides moving away from the target and onto nontarget plants ( Akesson and Yates 1964;Maybank et al 1978;Soltani et al 2016;Steckel et al 2010). Many factors that can contribute to herbicides moving away from target plants and onto nontarget plants, such as physical drift of herbicide droplets and contamination of improperly cleaned spray tanks, can be managed by the applicator (Vangessel and Johnson 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of Missouri Pesticide Applicator Practices, Knowledge, and Perceptions

Bish

Bradley

2017

Weed Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of soybean and cotton traits with resistance to synthetic auxin herbicides has led to an increase in concern over the off-target movement of dicamba and 2,4-D. A direct-mail survey was sent to Missouri pesticide applicators in January of 2016 to understand current herbicide application practices and applicator knowledge and awareness of the new synthetic auxin technologies. Completed surveys were returned by 2,335 applicators, representing approximately 11% of the state's registered pesticide applicators. Survey data reported herein provides information regarding current pesticide applicator knowledge and practices and highlights areas that need more emphasis during applicator training. Overall, survey respondents were familiar with physical drift and methods to minimize that risk. However respondents were less familiar with volatility and temperature inversions, which can each influence off-target herbicide movement. Of the 427 commercial applicators and 1,535 noncommercial applicators who answered questions regarding volatility, 81% and 74% respectively, recognized that high temperatures can contribute to a herbicide's ability to volatilize. However, only 48% and 39% understood that a herbicide's vapor pressure influences volatility. Answers from the survey indicate further education is needed on the synthetic auxin technologies, such as what herbicides can be used with each technology, proper methods for inspecting and cleaning spray equipment, and the importance of reading herbicide labels. When asked whether applicators were aware of the new 2,4-D-resistant and dicamba-resistant traits, 76% of 443 commercial applicators and only 40% of 1,713 noncommercial applicators selected "yes." Additionally, survey results suggests that current methods aimed to facilitate communication among producers and applicators, such as FieldWatch and Flag the Technology, may not be successfully adopted, at least in Missouri. Findings from this survey can be utilized to enhance training of pesticide applicators in preparation for the synthetic auxin herbicide technologies. Nomenclature: dicamba; 2,4-D; cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Key words: Synthetic auxin herbicide, herbicide label, nozzles, drift-control agents, herbicideresistance traits, herbicide injury, spray tank, contamination, physical drift, volatility, wind speeds, temperature inversion, FieldWatch, Flag the Technology, specialty crops.La introducción de soja y algodón con resistencia a herbicidas auxinas sintéticas ha generado preocupación por el movimiento accidental de dicamba y 2,4−D a lugares no deseados. En Enero de 2016 se envió una encuesta vía correo directo a aplicadores de plaguicidas con licencia de Missouri para entender las prácticas de aplicación de herbicidas actuales y el conocimiento de los aplicadores acerca de las nuevas tecnologías de auxinas sintéticas. Se recibieron 2,335 encuestas completadas por aplicadores, lo que representó 11% del registro de aplicadores de plaguicidas del estado. Los datos...

show abstract

“…Similarly, the dose of 3 g ae ha -1 of dicamba induced a 20% of decline in grain yield, while the 41 g ae ha -1 subdose reduced it by 85% when the soybean was at a height of 20-30 cm (Johnson et al, 2012). Furthermore, when compared with the control, the yield decrease was noted to be in the order of 1, 5, 10, 20 and 50% with the application of 1.1; 5.8; 11.8; 25.2 and 60 g ae ha -1 , respectively; it was 1 when the dose was applied during the V3 phase and 0.75; 1.0; 2.0; 4.3 and 11.5 g ae ha -1 when applied at the R1, respectively, with the grain yield becoming less in response to the increase in the dicamba subdose (Soltani et al, 2016).…”

Section: Grain Yieldmentioning

confidence: 95%

Subdoses of Dicamba Herbicide on Yield Componentes in Function of the Soybean Growth Stage

Schneider¹,

Rizzardi²,

Rockenbach³

et al. 2019

JAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soybean cultivars without tolerance can suffer injury from exposure to tank herbicide residues. This study aimed at assessing the potential effects of the broad spectrum herbicide dicamba on sensitive soybean during its vegetative and reproductive stages. The trial was performed in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Six rates (1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 11.2, 16.8 and 28.0 g ae ha-1) of dicamba were applied at two soybean growth stages (V3 and R2). The soybeans were planted in Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul state in 2015/16 agricultural year. The dicamba induced symptoms of soybean phytotoxicity showed a steady rise at all the assessment times. The soybean decreased in height as the subdose of the herbicide increased. Dicamba was observed to negatively affect the number of nodes alone, during the V3 and R2 stages. The grain yield was adversely affected at the 28.0 g ae ha-1 subdose, in the V3 application stage, and in response to the 16.8 and 28.0 g ae ha-1 subdoses in the R2 stage.

show abstract

Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean to dicamba spray tank contamination during vegetative and reproductive growth stages

Cited by 26 publications

References 13 publications

Effect of soybean growth stage on sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba and 2,4-D

Effect of soybean growth stage on sensitivity to sublethal rates of dicamba and 2,4-D

Survey of Missouri Pesticide Applicator Practices, Knowledge, and Perceptions

Subdoses of Dicamba Herbicide on Yield Componentes in Function of the Soybean Growth Stage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About