Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:34:04.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods To Measure Herbicide Volatility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas C. Mueller
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tmueller@utk.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Herbicides are powerful chemical agents that exert strong biological activity on plants. The release of new formulations of dicamba and 2,4-D and their use in transgenic agronomic crops will probably result in many more applications during the time of year when sensitive nontarget vegetation will be present. The use of herbicides is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and there are usually no negative effects on nontarget species. One negative aspect of herbicide use occurs when the application moves away from the target area and causes unwanted plant injury on susceptible species. Interest in herbicide drift is increasing, as evidenced by the number of refereed articles that investigate the mitigation or potential for herbicide drift (Figure 1). Although the topic of herbicide drift is broad, in this manuscript I will focus on an overview of off-site movement from a historical perspective and then discuss specific research protocols to examine vapor drift.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue SP1: Special Issue: Research Methods in Weed Science , February 2015 , pp. 116 - 120
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2012) The Making of an Advanced Dicamba Formulation. http://www.agro.basf.us/information/video-library/dicamba.html. Accessed August 25, 2013Google Scholar
Anonymous (2013) Spray Drift Task Force Report. www.agdrift.com. Accessed August 25, 2013Google Scholar
Behrens, R, Lueschen, WE (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493Google Scholar
Brown, CA, Holdeman, QL, Hagood, ES (1948) Injuries to Cotton by 2,4-D. Baton Rouge, LALouisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 426. 19 pGoogle Scholar
Day, BE, Johnson, E, Dewlen, JL (1959) Volatility of herbicides under field conditions. Hilgardia 28:255–267Google Scholar
Grover, R, Maybank, J, Yoshida, K (1972) Droplet and vapor drift from butyl ester and dimethlyamine salt of 2,4-D. Weed Sci 20:320–324Google Scholar
Hapeman, CJ, McConnell, LL, Potter, TL, Harman-Fetcho, J, Schmidt, WF, Rice, P, Schaffer, BA, Curry, R (2013) Endosulfan in the atmosphere of South Florida: transport to Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. Atmos Environ 66:131–140Google Scholar
Mueller, TC, Wright, DR, Remund, KN (2013) Effect of formulation and application time of day on detecting dicamba in the air under field conditions. Weed Sci 61:586–593Google Scholar
Que Hee, SS, Sutherland, RG, McKinlay, KS, Saha, JG (1975) Factors affecting the volatility of DDT, dieldrin, and dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D from leaf and glass surfaces. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 31:284–290Google Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004a) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. I. Quantifying injury to cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:1125–1134Google Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004b) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. II. Practical applications to quantify volatility. Weed Technol 18:1135–1142Google Scholar
Staten, G (1946) Contamination of cotton fields by 2,4-D or hormone-type weed sprays. Agron J 38:536–544Google Scholar
Strachan, SD, Casini, MS, Heldreth, KM, Scocas, JA, Nissen, SJ, Bukun, B, Lindenmeyer, RB, Shaner, DL, Westra, P, Brunk, G (2010) Vapor movement of synthetic auxin herbicides: aminocyclopyrachlor, aminocyclopyrachlor-methyl ester, dicamba, and aminopyralid. Weed Sci 58:103–108Google Scholar
Strachan, SD, Ferry, NM, Cooper, TL (2013) Vapor movement of aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, and dicamba in the field. Weed Technol 27:143–155Google Scholar
Webster, EP (2013) Herbicide drift: past, present, future. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 66:46Google Scholar