Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Soybean response to dicamba in irrigation water under controlled environmental conditions

  • Cammy D. Willett (a1), Erin M. Grantz (a2), Jung Ae Lee (a3), Matthew N. Thompson (a4) and Jason K. Norsworthy (a5)...

Abstract

While much research has focused on crop damage following foliar exposure to auxin herbicides, reports documenting the risk posed by exposure via root uptake of irrigation water are lacking. Herbicide residues circulated in tailwater recovery systems may pose threats of cross-crop impacts to nonresistant cultivars with known sensitivity to auxins. An auxin-susceptible soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivar was grown in a controlled growth chamber environment and exposed to dicamba dissolved in irrigation water applied to the soil surface, simulating furrow irrigation. Five herbicide treatment concentrations, ranging from 0.05 to 5.0 mg L−1 and encompassing estimated field doses of 3.1 to 310g ha−1, were applied to the soil of potted soybean plants at V3/V4 or R1 growth stages. Plant injury (0% to 100%), dry mass, height, number of pods, and number of pod-bearing nodes were measured. Kruskal-Wallis and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine treatment differences and examine dose effects. Yield losses were projected using (1) 14 d after treatment plant injury assessments based on injury–yield relationships described for foliar exposures and (2) pod counts. Dicamba concentration was the main significant factor affecting all growth response metrics, and growth stage was a significant explanatory variable only for the height response metric. A nonlinear response to dicamba dose was observed, with the threshold response dose required to affect 50% of plants being three times greater for 40% crop injury compared with 20% injury. Yield projections derived from plant response to root uptake compared with foliar exposure indicate that soybean may express both magnitude of injury and specific symptomology differently when exposure occurs via root uptake. Drift exposure–based models may be incompatible to predict soybean yield loss when injury results from irrigation. Data are needed to develop correlations for predicting yield losses based on field-scale exposure to dicamba in irrigation water, as well as assessment of real-world concentrations of herbicide residues in tailwater recovery systems.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Soybean response to dicamba in irrigation water under controlled environmental conditions
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Soybean response to dicamba in irrigation water under controlled environmental conditions
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Soybean response to dicamba in irrigation water under controlled environmental conditions
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Cammy D. Willett, Email: willettc@uark.edu

References

Hide All
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264270
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750760
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471475
Banks, PA, Schroeder, J (2002) Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol 16:833837
Bruns, VF (1954) The response of certain crops to 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid in irrigation water. Weeds 3:359376
Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Shugart, J, Leifheit, N, Curry, M, Gray, T (2018) Effects of low-dose applications of 2,4-D and dicamba on watermelon. Weed Technol 32:267272
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014a) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193206
Egan, JF, Bohnenblust, E, Goslee, S, Mortensen, D, Tooker, J (2014b) Herbicide drift can affect plant and arthropod communities. Agric Ecosyst Environ 185:7787
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503506
Evett, S, Carman, D, Bucks, D (2003). Expansion of irrigation in the Mid South United States: water allocations and research issues. Pages 247–260 in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Water for a Sustainable World—Limited Supplies and Demand. Phoenix, AZ: U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO III, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696703
Hill, BD, Harker, KN, Hasselback, P, Moyer, JR, Inaba, DJ, Byers, SD (2002) Phenoxy herbicides in Alberta rainfall: potential effects on sensitive crops. Can J Plant Sci 82:481484
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edminsten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195206
Kadoum, AM, Mock, DE (1978) Herbicide and insecticide residues in tailwater pits: water and pit bottom soil from irrigated corn and sorghum fields. J Agric Food Chem 26:4550
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101112
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, JC, Ritz, C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840848
Majewski, MS, Foreman, WT, Goolsby, DA (2000) Pesticides in the atmosphere of the Mississippi River Valley, part I—rain. Sci Total Environ 248:201212
Moore, MT, Bennett, ER, Cooper, CM, Smith, S Jr, Shields, FD Jr, Milam, CD, Farris, JL (2001) Transport and fate of atrazine and lambda-cyhalothrin in an agricultural drainage ditch in the Mississippi Delta, USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 87:309314
Scifres, CJ, Allen, TJ, Leinweber, CL, Pearson, KH (1973) Dissipation and phytotoxicity of dicamba residues in water. J Environ Qual 2:306309
Sitompul, SM, Sari, DI, Krisnawati, E, Mulia, RH, Taufiq, M (2015) Pod number and photosynthesis as physiological selection criteria in soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) breeding for high yield. Agrivita 37:7588
Sullivan, ME, Delp, WM (2012) Water Conservation Planning: How a Systems Approach to Irrigation Promotes Sustainable Water Use. Pages 145159 in NABC Report 24: Water Sustainability in Agriculture. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/51384. Accessed: February 18, 2019
Tacker, P, Vories, E (2000) Irrigation. Pages 42-49 in Arkansas Soybean Production Handbook—MP197. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Extension Service. http://www.arkansas-crops.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/mp197.pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2018
Van Dijk, HFG, Guicherit, R (1999) Atmospheric dispersion of current-use pesticides: a review from the evidence from monitoring studies. Pages 7181 in Van Dijk, HFG, Van Pul, WAJ, De Voogt, P, eds. Fate of Pesticides in the Atmosphere: Implications for Environmental Risk Assessment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
Vories, ED, Evett, SR (2010) Irrigation Research Needs in the USA Mid-South and Southeast, Humid and Sub-Humid Regions. in 5th National Decennial Irrigation Proceedings. Phoenix, AZ: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, doi: 10.13031/2013.35852
Wauchope, RD (1978) The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields—a review. J Environ Qual 4:459472
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388393

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Soybean response to dicamba in irrigation water under controlled environmental conditions

  • Cammy D. Willett (a1), Erin M. Grantz (a2), Jung Ae Lee (a3), Matthew N. Thompson (a4) and Jason K. Norsworthy (a5)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.