Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production

  • Kayla N. Wiedau (a1), Ronald F. Krausz (a2), S. Alan Walters (a3), Joseph L. Matthews (a4) and Karla L. Gage (a5)...

Abstract

Off-target movement of dicamba and 2,4-D may injure and reduce the yield of many fruit and vegetable crops, impacting specialty crop producers and herbicide applicators alike. Two field experiments were established, using plant growth regulator–resistant soybean herbicide technologies, to evaluate drift and carryover risks to horseradish production. The drift experiment was conducted in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate impact of dicamba and 2,4-D simulated drift on horseradish production with a mid-POST application in soybean. Simulated drift rates were 1/10,000X, 1/1,000X, and 1/100X, with 1/2X, 1X, and 2X of standard application rates. Injury and yield loss was greater following application of 2,4-D than with dicamba. Yield reductions were observed beginning at the 1/1,000X rate of 2,4-D, with complete crop loss occurring when rates exceed 1/2X. In comparison, dicamba only reduced yields when applied at the 1X and 2X rates. Only horseradish roots from plants treated with dicamba at the 2X rate had greater dicamba residue than the nontreated control, and the amount detected, 0.32 parts per billion (ppb), was lower than the EPA tolerance of 100 ppb in root crops. There was little to no harvestable tissue for 2,4-D residue analysis for plants treated with 2,4-D at rates above 1/2X. The carryover experiment was a 2-yr rotational evaluation conducted in 2014, 2015, and 2016 to assess dicamba carryover to horseradish following application to dicamba-resistant soybean the previous season. Observations taken at 4, 6, and 8 wk after planting indicated no significant horseradish injury, nor was height, stand, or root weight reduced. These results suggest that horseradish growers should have few concerns about injury from dicamba drift or carryover. While 2,4-D applicators may need to be cautious when making applications near horseradish fields, 2,4-D may be an effective tool for controlling volunteer horseradish in 2,4-D–resistant soybean.

  • 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.

      Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production
      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.

      Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production
      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.

      Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Karla L. Gage, Southern Illinois University, 1205 Lincoln Drive MC 4415, Agriculture Building, Room 176, Carbondale, IL 62901-6509. (Email: kgage@siu.edu)

Footnotes

Hide All

Cite this article: Wiedau KN, Krausz RF, Walters SA, Matthews JL, Gage KL (2019) Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production. Weed Technol 33:75–86. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.109

Footnotes

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 aplication rates and yield. Agron J 96:750760.
Anonymous (2016a)2,4-D LV4 herbicide product label. No. AD102403. Ankeny, Iowa: Albaugh Inc. 10 p
Anonymous (2016b) Clarity® herbicide product label. Research Triangle, NC: BASF Corporation. 22 p
Anonymous (2016c) Enlist Duo® with Colex-D® Technology herbicide product label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow Agrosciences LLC. 7 p
Colquhoun, JB, Daniel, JH, Tittmeyer, RA (2014) Relationship between visual injury from synthetic auxin and glyphosate herbicides and snap bean and potato yield. Weed Technol 28:671678
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193206
Egan, JF, Mortensen, DA (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:10231031
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503506
Gilreath, JP, Chase, CA, Locascio, SJ (2001) Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide. III. pepper. HortScience 36:677681
Hatterman-Valenti, H, Endres, G, Jenks, B, Ostlie, M, Reinhardt, T, Robinson, A, Stenger, J, Zollinger, R (2017) Defining glyphosate and dicamba drift injury to dry edible pea, dry edible bean, and potato. HortTechnology 27:502509.
Jenkins, ME, Krausz, RF, Matthews, JE, Gage, KL, Walters, SA (2017) Control of volunteer horseradish and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with dicamba and glyphosate. Weed Technol 31:852862
Johanning, NR, Walters, SA, Young, BG (2016) Herbicides for control of volunteer horseradish (Armoracia rusticana) and potential carryover to subsequent horseradish production. Weed Technol 30:181189
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, 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
Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Doohan, DJ, Weller, SC (2012) Dose response of glyphosate and dicamba on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) injury. Weed Technol 26:256260 10.1614/WT-D-11-00073.1
Lange, A, Fischer, B, Humphrey, W, Seyman, W, Baghott, K, Sumner, D, Krantz, B, Broadbent, F, Williams, W, Baghott, K (1968) Herbicide residues in California agricultural soils. Calif Agric 22:24
Mark, UM, Wyse, DL (1987) Tolerance of soybean (Glycine max) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to fall-applied dicamba. Weed Sci 35:846852
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 22:609614
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Doohan, D (2015) Response of bell pepper and broccoli to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 29:226232
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Wolfe, S, Dami, I, Doohan, D (2016) Response of wine grape cultivars to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate, and 2,4-D or dicamba plus glyphosate. Weed Technol 30:807814
Monsanto (2016)XtendiMaxTM with VaporGripTM Technology EPA Reg. No. 524-617 product label. St Louis, MO: Monsanto Company. 9 p
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:7584
Robinson, AP, Davis, VM, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013a) Response of soybean yield components to 2,4-D. Weed Sci 61:6876
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013b) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526536
Rundle, MF, Walters, SA, Young, BG (2007) Efficacy of postemergence corn and soybean herbicides on volunteer horseradish (Armoracia rusticana). Weed Technol 21:501505
Schroeder, GL, Cole, DF, Dexter, AG (1983) Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Sci 31:831836
Shehata, A, Mulwa, RMS, Babadoost, M, Uchanski, M, Norton, MA, Skirvin, R, Walters, SA (2009) Horseradish: Botany, horticulture, breeding. Hort Rev (Amer Soc Hort Sci) 35:221261
Smith, HC, Ferrell, JA, Webster, TM, Fernandez, JV (2017) Cotton response to simulated auxin herbicide drift using standard and ultra-low carrier volumes. Weed Technol 31:19
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Protection of Environment, 40 C.F.R. Chap. I, Subchap. E. Part 180.227. The Electronic US Code of Federal Regulations.
Walters, SA, Wahle, EA (2010) Horseradish production in Illinois. HortTechnology 20:267276

Keywords

Evaluating risks of plant growth regulator–resistant soybean technologies to horseradish production

  • Kayla N. Wiedau (a1), Ronald F. Krausz (a2), S. Alan Walters (a3), Joseph L. Matthews (a4) and Karla L. Gage (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