Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:47:31.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Row Crop Sensitivity to Low Rates of Foliar-Applied Florpyrauxifen-benzyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2018

M. Ryan Miller  and
Jason K. Norsworthy
M. Ryan Miller*
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Professor and Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
*
*Author for correspondence: M. Ryan Miller, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704. (E-mail: mrm032@uark.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a greenhouse experiment, soybean, cotton, corn, grain sorghum, and sunflower were subjected to 1/10 (3 g ai ha-1), 1/100 (0.3 g ai ha-1), or 1/500 (0.06 g ai ha-1) of the 1X rate of florpyrauxifen-benzyl. Visible injury 14 days after treatment (DAT) was the greatest with soybean (96%) when exposed to the highest drift rate of 1/10x or 3 g ai/ha-1 of florpyrauxifen-benzyl and was significantly higher than all other crops and drift rates. Cotton and sunflower were also injured 85 and 83%, respectively, by the 1/10x rate but had less injury when a 1/100x or 1/500x rate was applied (injury ranging from 9 to 33%). It was concluded that the negative effects on soybean, cotton, and sunflower primarily resulted from exposure to the highest rate tested (1/10x) and only soybean expressed negative effects even at the lower rate of 1/100x. A field study was also conducted to (1) evaluate the sensitivity of soybean to low concentrations of florpyrauxifen-benzyl during vegetative and reproductive development and (2) compare soybean injury and yield following applications of florpyrauxifen-benzyl and dicamba across various growth stages and concentrations. Soybean plants were treated with 1/10, 1/20, 1/40, 1/80, 1/160, 1/320, or 1/640 of the 1X rate of florpyrauxifen-benzyl (30 g ai/ ha-1) or dicamba (560 g ae ha-1) at the V3 and R1 growth stage. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl applied at a rate of 1/10 to 1/40X caused foliar injury and subsequent height reduction. In comparison, dicamba applied at the same rates caused slightly less injury and growth reductions. As rate of florpyrauxifen-benzyl decreased from 1/10 to 1/640X, the level of soybean injury dissipated rather quickly. However, this was not the case with dicamba, as substantial injury was observed with rates as low as 1/640X.

Keywords

Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaFlorpyrauxifen-benzylcommon sunflower, Helianthus annuus Lcorn, Zea mays L.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ssp. arundinaceum (Desv.) de Wet & Harlansoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrAuxinRinskor™ active herbicide driftoff-target movementrice
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 398 - 403
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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.)

References

Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlations to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google Scholar
Barber, LT, Norsworthy, JK, McCown, MS (2014) Dicamba effects on soybean plants and their progeny. Pages 147–149 in Arkansas Soybean Research Studies 2014. Fayetteville, AR: The University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension ServiceGoogle Scholar
Devine, MD (1989) Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev Weed Sci 4:191–213 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Mortenson, DA (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1023–1031 Google Scholar
Epp, JB, Alexander, AL, Balko, TW, Buysse, AM, Brewster, WK, Bryan, K, Daeuble, JF, Fields, SC, Gast, RE, Green, RA, Irvine, NM, Lo, WC, Lowe, CT, Renga, JM, Richburg, JS, Ruiz, JM, Satchivi, NM, Schmitzer, PR, Siddall, TL, Webster, JD, Weimer, MR, Whiteker, GT, Yerkes, CN (2016) The discovery of ArlyexTM active and RinskorTM active: two novel auxin herbicides. J Bioorganic and Medicinal Chem 24:362–437 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO 3rd, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Sci 27:696–703 Google Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112 Google Scholar
Lorah, EJ, Hemphill, DD (1974) Direct chromatography of some N-methylcarbamate pesticides. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 57:570–575 Google Scholar
Maraquardt, RP, Luce, EN (1961) A new basic procedure for determining phenoxy acid herbicides in agricultural products. J Agric Food Chem 9:266–270 Google Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut Control Assoc 28:1009–1014 Google Scholar
Miller, MR, Norsworthy, JK (2015) Influence of herbicide rate, application volume, and adjuvant use on efficacy of RinskorTM active. Pages 196–200 in BR Wells Research Series. Fayetteville, AR: University of ArkansasGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Wright, DR, Remund, KM (2013) Effect of formulation and application time of day on detecting dicamba in the air under field conditions. Weed Sci 61:586–593 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T, Scott, R, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE, Reyoolds, D (2015) Understanding the risks associated with increased use of auxin herbicides in Midsouth crops: what are the concerns? Proc Southern Weed Sci Soc 180 Google Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Eubank, TW, Scott, RC (2013) Assessment of weed management practices and problem weeds in the midsouth United States-soybean: a consultant’s perspective. Weed Technol 27:612–622 Google Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454–464 Google Scholar
Thompson, L Jr, Egli, DB (1973) Evaluation of seedling offspring of soybeans treated with 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba. Weed Sci 21:141–144 Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G, Penner, D (1989) Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev Weed Sci 4:215–231 Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB Jr, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643 Google Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR, Maybank, J (1992) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Pages 29–52 in Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Science PublishingGoogle Scholar
Womac, AR, Goodwin, JC, Hart, WE (1997) Tip Selection for Precision Application of Herbicides. University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin/430/. Accessed October 5, 2016Google Scholar
Yarpuz-Bozdogan, N (2011) Drift of pesticides. Encyclopedia of Pest Mngmt. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/E-EPM-120009991#.VSP_7rB8OM8. Accessed September 28, 2016Google Scholar
Yip, G (1962) Determination of 2,4-D and other chlorinated phenoxy alkyl acids. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 45:367–376 Google Scholar