Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-mrcq8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T10:50:16.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of optimal droplet size for control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with acifluorfen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2020

Lucas X. Franca
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Darrin M. Dodds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Thomas R. Butts
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, North Platte, NE, USA
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, North Platte, NE, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
J. Anthony Mills
Affiliation:
Weed Management Technology Development Representative, Bayer CropScience, Collierville, TN, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Angus L. Catchot
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Mississippi State University, Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel G. Peterson
Affiliation:
Director and Professor, Mississippi State University, Institute for Genomics, Biocomputing and Biotechnology and Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Darrin M. Dodds, Mississippi State University, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, 32 Creelman Street, Office 114, Dorman Hall, Mississippi State, MS39762. Email: dmd76@msstate.edu

Abstract

Acifluorfen is a nonsystemic PPO-inhibiting herbicide commonly used for POST Palmer amaranth control in soybean, peanut, and rice across the southern United States. Concerns have been raised regarding herbicide selection pressure and particle drift, increasing the need for application practices that optimize herbicide efficacy while mitigating spray drift. Field research was conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018 in Mississippi and Nebraska to evaluate the influence of a range of spray droplet sizes [150 μm (Fine) to 900 μm (Ultra Coarse)], using acifluorfen to create a novel Palmer amaranth management recommendation using pulse width modulation (PWM) technology. A pooled site-year generalized additive model (GAM) analysis suggested that 150-μm (Fine) droplets should be used to obtain the greatest Palmer amaranth control and dry biomass reduction. Nevertheless, GAM models indicated that only 7.2% of the variability observed in Palmer amaranth control was due to differences in spray droplet size. Therefore, location-specific GAM analyses were performed to account for geographical differences to increase the accuracy of prediction models. GAM models suggested that 250-μm (Medium) droplets optimize acifluorfen efficacy on Palmer amaranth in Dundee, MS, and 310-μm (Medium) droplets could sustain 90% of maximum weed control. Specific models for Beaver City, NE, indicated that 150-μm (Fine) droplets provide maximum Palmer amaranth control, and 340-μm (Medium) droplets could maintain 90% of greatest weed control. For Robinsonville, MS, optimal Palmer amaranth control could be obtained with 370-μm (Coarse) droplets, and 90% maximum control could be sustained with 680 μm (Ultra Coarse) droplets. Differences in optimal droplet size across location could be a result of convoluted interactions between droplet size, weather conditions, population density, plant morphology, and soil fertility levels. Future research should adopt a holistic approach to identify and investigate the influence of environmental and application parameters to optimize droplet size recommendations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: David Johnson, Corteva Agriscience

References

Anglung, EA, Ayers, PD (2003) Field evaluation of response times for a variable rate (pressure-based and injection) liquid chemical applicator. Appl Eng Agric 19:273282Google Scholar
ASABE (2009) Spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra, ANSI/ASAE S572.2. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Pp 13Google Scholar
Berger, ST, Dobrow, MH, Ferrel, J.A, Webster, TM (2014) Influence of carrier volume and nozzle selection on Palmer amaranth control. Peanut Sci 41:120123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, EM Jr (1991) Crop protection––meeting the challenge. Pages 3–22 in Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection Conference Weeds. London: The British Crop Protection CouncilGoogle Scholar
Bode, L (1987) Spray application technology. Pages 85110in McWhorter, CG, Gebhardt, MR, eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Bode, LE, Bretthauer, SM (2007) Agricultural chemical application technology: a remarkable past and an amazing future. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 51:391395Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Reynolds, DB, Irby, T (2016) Managing PPO-resistant Palmer amaranth in Mississippi soybean. Mississippi State University Ext. http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2016/03/25/managing-ppo-resistant-palmer-amaranth-in-mississippi-soybean/. Accessed: January 14, 2019Google Scholar
Bouse, LF, Kirk, IW, Bode, LE (1990) Effect of spray mixture on droplet size. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 33:783788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, W, Leon, RG, Ferrell, JA, Mulvaney, MJ, Wood, CW (2018) Evolutionary adaptations of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to nitrogen fertilization and crop rotation history affect morphology and nutrient-use efficiency. Weed Sci 66:180189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, MR, da Cunha, JPAR, de Santana, DG (2017) Assessment of spray drift from pesticide applications in soybean crops. Biosyst Eng 154:3545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Butts, LE, Luck, JD, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Kruger, GR (2019b) Droplet size and nozzle tip pressure from a pulse-width modulation sprayer. J Biosyst Eng 178:5269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Kruger, GR (2018) Spray droplet size and carrier volume effect on dicamba and glufosinate efficacy. Pest Manag Sci 74:20202029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA, Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, R, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, CW, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2019c) Droplet size impact on efficacy of a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture. Weed Technol 33:6674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Samples, CA.Franca, LX, Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Adams, JW, Zollinger, RK, Howatt, KA, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2019a) Optimum droplet size using a pulse-width modulation sprayer for applications of 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate. Agron J 111:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, SCK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778786Google ScholarPubMed
Chachalis, D, Reddy, KN, Elmore, CD, Steele, ML (2001) Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morning. Weed Sci 49:628634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2013) The R Book, 2nd edn. Silwood Park, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Pp 666679Google Scholar
Creech, CF, Henry, RS, Fritz, BK, Kruger, GR (2015) Influence of herbicide active ingredient, nozzle type, orifice size, spray pressure, and carrier volume rate on spray droplet size characteristics. Weed Technol 29:298310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, CF, Moraes, JG, Henry, RS, Luck, JD, Kruger, GR (2016) The impact of spray droplet size on the efficacy of 2,4-D, atrazine, chlorimuron-methyl, dicamba, glufosinate, and saflufenacil. Weed Technol 30:573586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, N, Massinon, M, Salah, SO, Lebeau, F (2017) Investigation on optimal spray properties for ground-based agricultural applications using deposition and retention models. J Biosyst Eng 162:99111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ennis, WB Jr, Williamson, RE (1963) Influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low-volume herbicidal sprays. Weeds 1:6772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Hart, WE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, TC (2001) Effect of Venturi-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 15:7580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 3738. in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Giles, DK, Comino, JA (1989) Variable flow control for pressure atomization nozzles. J Commerical Veh SAE Trans 98:237249Google Scholar
Giles, DK, Henderson, GW, Funk, K (1996) Digital control of flow rate and spray droplet size from agricultural nozzles for precision chemical application. Pages 729738in Robert, PC, Rust, RH, Larson, WE, eds. Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA. doi:10.2134/1996.precisionagproc3.c87Google Scholar
Gray, CJ, Shaw, DR, Bond, JA, Stephenson, DO, Oliver, LR (2007) Assessing the reflective characteristics of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) accessions. Weed Sci 55:293298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, IM (2019) The international survey of herbicide-resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: January 18, 2019Google Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudsk, P (2017) Optimizing herbicide performance. Pages 149179in Hatcher, PE, Froud-Williams, RJ, eds. Weed Research: Expanding Horizons. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, LtdGoogle Scholar
Lake, JR (1977) The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic Sci 8:515520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangus, DL, Sharda, A, Engelhardt, A, Flippo, D, Strasser, R, Luck, JD, Griffin, T (2017) Analyzing the nozzle spray fan pattern of an agricultural sprayer using pulse-width modulation technology to generate an on-ground coverage map. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 60:315325Google Scholar
Massinon, M, De Cock, N, Forster, WA, Nairn, JJ, McCue, SW, Zabkiewicz, JA, Lebeau, F (2017) Spray droplet impaction outcomes for different plant species and spray formulations. Crop Prot 99:6575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G (2008) Pesticide Application Methods. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Pp 4243Google Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Brandt, SA, Morse, P, Ashford, R (1972) Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci 20:450452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Barber, T (2015) Influence of droplet size on efficacy of the formulated products Engenia™, Roundup PowerMax®, and Liberty®. Weed Technol 29:641652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pimentel, D (1995) Amounts of pesticides reaching target pests: environmental impacts and ethics. J Agr Environ Ethic 8:1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R (1987) A study of droplet size and density in relation to efficacy of herbicides. Weed Sci Soc Am Abstr 27:98Google Scholar
Price, WJ, Shafii, B, Seefeldt, SS (2012) Estimation of dose–response models for discrete and continuous data in weed science. Weed Technol 26:587601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, RB, Maki, R (1986) The Effect of Drop Size on Spray Deposit Efficiency. St. Joseph, MO: American Society of Agricultural Engineering Paper No.86–1508, 8 pGoogle Scholar
Rosenheim, JA, Meisner, MH (2013) Ecoinformatics can reveal yield gaps associated with crop–pest interactions: a proof-of-concept. PloS One 8:80518. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DR, Morris, WH, Webster, EP, Smith, DB (2000) Effects of spray volume and droplet size on herbicide deposition and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control. Weed Technol 14:321326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, PH, Brown, L, Shropshire, C, Spieser, H, Soltani, N (2008) Flat fan and air induction nozzles affect soybean herbicide efficacy. Weed Biol Manag 8:3138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillman, JJ (1984) Spray impaction, retention and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pest Manag Sci 15:9710610.1002/ps.2780150202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweat, JK, Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE, Lloyd, RW, Boyer, JE (1998) Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:315321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, WA, Womac, AR, Miller, PCH, Taylor, BP (2004) An attempt to relate droplet size to drift risk. Pages 210–223 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Pullman, WA: Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Whisenant, SG, Bouse, LF, Crane, RA, Bovey, RW (1993) Droplet size and spray volume effects on honey mesquite mortality with clopyralid. J Range Manage 46:257261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, W, Akesson, N, Bayer, D (1976) Effects of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 19:4146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, AF, Ieno, EN (2016) A protocol for conducting and presenting results of regression-type analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 7:636645CrossRefGoogle Scholar