Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:06:00.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of dicamba retention in spray tanks and its impact on flue-cured tobacco

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2020

Matthew D. Inman Open the ORCID record for Matthew D. Inman [Opens in a new window] ,
Matthew C. Vann ,
Loren R. Fisher ,
Travis W. Gannon ,
David L. Jordan  and
Katie M. Jennings
Matthew D. Inman*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, SC, USA
Matthew C. Vann
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Loren R. Fisher
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Travis W. Gannon
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katie M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Matthew D. Inman, Clemson University, Pee Dee Research and Education Center, Florence, SC29506. (Email: mdinman@clemson.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, there has been increased use of dicamba due to the introduction of dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean in the United States. Therefore, there is a potential increase in off-target movement of dicamba and injury to sensitive crops. Flue-cured tobacco is extremely sensitive to auxin herbicides, particularly dicamba. In addition to yield loss, residue from drift or equipment contamination can have severe repercussions for the marketability of the crop. Studies were conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018 in North Carolina to evaluate spray-tank cleanout efficiency of dicamba using various cleaning procedures. No difference in dicamba recovery was observed regardless of dicamba formulation and cleaning agent. Dicamba residue decreased with the number of rinses. There was no difference in dicamba residue recovered from the third rinse compared with residue from the tank after being refilled for subsequent tank use. Recovery ranged from 2% to 19% of the original concentration rate among the three rinses. Field studies were also conducted in 2018 to evaluate flue-cured tobacco response to reduced rates of dicamba ranging, from 1/5 to 1/10,000 of a labeled rate. Injury and yield reductions varied by environment and application timing. When exposed to 1/500 of a labeled rate at 7 and 11 wk after transplanting, tobacco injury ranged from 39% to 53% and 10% to 16% 24 days after application, respectively. The maximum yield reduction was 62%, with a 55% reduction in value when exposed to 112 g ha−1 of dicamba. Correlations showed significant relationships between crop injury assessment and yield and value reductions, with Pearson values ranging from 0.24 to 0.63. These data can provide guidance to growers and stakeholders and emphasize the need for diligent stewardship when using dicamba technology.

Keywords

tank contaminationcontaminationoff-target movementsimulated driftauxinyieldqualityDicambacottonGossypium hirsutum L.flue-cured tobaccoNicotiana tabacum L.soybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 35 - 42
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: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Bauerle, MJ, Griffin, JL, Alford, JL, Curry, AB, Kenty, MM (2015) Field evaluation of auxin herbicide volatility using cotton and tomato as bioassay crops. Weed Technol 29:185–19710.1614/WT-D-14-00097.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, R, Lueschen, WE (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–49310.1017/S0043174500044453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. Pages 406–408 in Wisconsin Crop Management Conference: 2004 Proceedings Papers. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–MadisonGoogle Scholar
Bowman, DT, Tart, AG, Wernsman, EA, Corbin, TC (1988) Revised North Carolina grade index for flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco Sci 32:39–40Google Scholar
Bush, LP (1999) Alkaloid Biosynthesis. in Layten, DD, Nielsen, MT, eds. Tobacco Production, Chemistry and Technology. Oxford: Blackwell ScienceGoogle Scholar
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 32:267–27210.1017/wet.2018.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, GT, Reynolds, DB, Mueller, TC (2017) Evaluation of dicamba persistence among various agricultural hose types and cleanout procedures using soybean (Glycine max) as a bio-indicator. Weed Sci 65:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, RE (1976) A combined automated procedure for the determination of reducing sugars and nicotine alkaloids in tobacco products using a new reducing sugar method. Tobacco Sci 20:139–144Google Scholar
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 62:193–20610.1614/WS-D-13-00025.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, LR, ed. (2018) 2018 guide flue-cured tobacco. AG-187 (revised). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension ServiceGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, AM, Traina, SJ, Tuovinen, OH (1994) Determination of dicamba by reverse-phase HPLC. J Liq Chromatogr 17:2667–267410.1080/10826079408013406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, KH, Belcher, RS, Whitfield, DM (1973). Spray damage and residue levels in tobacco treated with various concentrations of 2,4-D at different stages of growth. Aust J Exp Agric Anim Husb 13:328–33410.1071/EA9730328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sub-lethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–20610.1614/WT-D-11-00054.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA (2011) Tobacco response to sub-lethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. MS thesis. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Pp. 1–32Google Scholar
Jones, GT, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T, Gbur, E, Kruger, GR (2018) Off-target movement of DGA and BAPMA dicamba to sensitive soybean. Weed Technol 33:51–6510.1017/wet.2018.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingman, GC, Guedez, H (1967) Picloram and its effects on field-grown tobacco. Weeds 15:142–14610.2307/4041185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, RG, Ferrell, JA, Brecke, BJ (2014) Impact of exposure to 2,4-D and dicamba on peanut injury and yield. Weed Technol 28:465–47010.1614/WT-D-13-00187.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, DF, Hoyle, ST, Fisher, LR, Yelverton, FH, Richardson, RJ (2011) Effect of simulated aminocyclopyrachlor drift on flue-cured tobacco. Weed Technol 25:609–615Google Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:75–8410.1525/bio.2012.62.1.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCDA&CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2018) North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/AgStat/AgStat2018.pdf. Accessed: January 24, 2019Google Scholar
Osborne, PP, Xu, Z, Swanson, KD, Walker, T, Farmer, DK (2015) Dicamba and 2,4-D residues following applicator cleanout: a potential point source to the environment and worker exposure. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 65:1153–115810.1080/10962247.2015.1072593CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seltmann, H, Sheets, TJ, Campbell, CR, Quick, FE (1989) Chemical residues and agronomic characteristics of flue-cured tobacco after applications of 2,4-D and dicamba. Tobacco Sci 33:110–113Google Scholar
Sheets, TJ, Worsham, AD (1991) Comparative effects of soil-applied dicamba and picloram on flue-cured tobacco. Technical Bulletin 295. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454–46410.1614/WT-D-13-00145.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, L, Craig, C, Thompson, A (2005) Cleaning plant growth regulator (PGR) herbicides out of field sprayers. University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service W071. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Strachan, SD, Ferry, NM, Cooper, TL (2013) Vapor movement of aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, and dicamba in the field. Weed Technol 27:143–15510.1614/WT-D-12-00096.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton and Tobacco Program (2018) Cotton Varieties Planted 2018 Crop. https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/cnavar.pdf. Accessed: January 24, 2019Google Scholar
White, JA, Hemphill, DD (1972) An ultrastructural study of the effects of 2,4-D on tobacco leaves. Weed Sci 20:478–48110.1017/S0043174500036183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, F, Nowaskie, D, Young, B, Foreman, K, Spradley, P, Walker, T, Becovitz, J, Obermeyer, J, Reynolds, D, Johnson, B, Leigh Smith, K (2015) Removing herbicide residues from agricultural application equipment. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Extension PPP-108. 52 pGoogle Scholar