Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:45:21.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed and Herbicide-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max) Response to Glufosinate and Glyphosate Plus Ammonium Sulfate and Pelargonic Acid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wendy A. Pline ,
Kriton K. Hatzios  and
E. Scott Hagood
Wendy A. Pline
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
Kriton K. Hatzios*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
E. Scott Hagood
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hatzios@vt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid on weed control with glufosinate and glyphosate and safety to glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant soybean were investigated in the greenhouse and field. Annual and perennial weeds varied in their sensitivity to the herbicides. Based on fresh weight reduction 10 d after treatment (DAT), common milkweed was more tolerant to glufosinate, and horsenettle was more tolerant to glyphosate. Giant foxtail was highly sensitive to both herbicides. The activity of glufosinate on common milkweed and of glyphosate on horsenettle was enhanced with the addition of 5% (wt/v) ammonium sulfate. The addition of pelargonic acid at 3% (v/v) did not enhance the activity of glufosinate or glyphosate on any weed, and it antagonized common lambsquarters and giant foxtail control with glufosinate and with glyphosate. Glyphosate was more effective than glufosinate in suppressing the regrowth of the perennial weeds horsenettle and common milkweed, but addition of ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid was not beneficial with either herbicide. Under field conditions, the addition of ammonium sulfate or pelargonic acid to glufosinate or glyphosate did not improve efficacy on annual weeds. The addition of pelargonic acid improved yellow nutsedge control with glufosinate, but only at 6 DAT. Glufosinate and glyphosate applied alone or in combination with ammonium sulfate were safe to transgenic soybeans resistant to the respective herbicide. The addition of pelargonic acid to glufosinate or glyphosate in the greenhouse caused a rate-dependent reduction in soybean fresh weight. In the field, slight soybean injury with the addition of pelargonic acid was evident 6 DAT, but not 23 DAT. Addition of ammonium sulfate can increase the efficacy of glufosinate and glyphosate on perennial weeds without negatively affecting soybean yield.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosatepelargonic acidcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon milkweed, Asclepias syriaca L. # ASCSYgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAhorsenettle, Solanum carolinense L. # SOLCAyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 5547LL’ and ‘Asgrow 4501RR’Herbicide additivesAmaranthus retroflexusAmbrosia artemisifoliaIpomoea hederaceaIpomoea lacunosaSenna obtusifoliaglufosinate-resistant soybeanglyphosate-resistant soybeanAMAREAMBELASCSYCASOBCHEALCYPESIPOHEIPOLASETFASOLCADAT, days after treatmentGR50, 50% growth reduction (the herbicide rate needed to achieve a 50% reduction in fresh weight)
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2000 , pp. 667 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Blair, A. M. 1975. The addition of ammonium salts or a phosphate ester to herbicides to control Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 15: 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 11: 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromilow, R. H., Chamberlain, K., and Evans, A. A. 1993. Phloem translocation of strong acids—glyphosate, substituted phosphonic acids and sulfonic acids—in Ricinus communis . Pestic. Sci. 37: 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, K. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Comparative phytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0224, SC-0545, and HOE-00661. Weed Sci. 32: 841–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Crop Sci. 11: 929–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikuenobe, C. E. 1992. Field evaluation of glufosinate-ammonium and glyphosate-trimesium against siam weed (Chromolaena odorata). Ann. Appl. Biol. 120 (Suppl.): 44–45.Google Scholar
Mullner, H., Eckes, P., and Donn, G. 1993. Engineering Crop Resistance to the Naturally Occuring Glutamine Synthetase Inhibitor Phosphinothricin. In Duke, S. O., Menn, J. J., and Plimmer, J. R., eds. Pest Control with Enhanced Environmental Safety. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society Series 524. pp. 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Influence of diammonium sulfate and other salts on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Pestic. Sci. 38: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hamman, W. M. 1981. Influence of non-ionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61: 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35: 1451–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. 1999a. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of glufosinate in five weed species as influenced by ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Sci. 47: 636–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. 1999b. Effects of temperature and chemical additives on the response of transgenic herbicide-resistant soybean to glufosinate and glyphosate applications. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 65: 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankula, S., Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. 1997. Glufosinate-resistant, BAR-transformed rice (Oryza sativa) and red rice (Oryza sativa) response to glufosinate alone and in mixtures. Weed Technol. 11: 662–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, S. and Zorner, P. 1996. The use of pelargonic acid as a weed management tool. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf. 48: 46–47.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds as influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11: 484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suwunnamek, U. and Parker, C. 1975. Control of Cyperus rotundus with glyphosate: the influence of ammonium sulfate and other additives. Weed Res. 15: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, D. J. and Loader, M.P.C. 1975. Further studies with additives: Effects of phosphate esters and ammonium salts on the activity of leaf applied herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 6: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, D. J. and Loader, M.P.C. 1981. Effect of ammonium sulfate and other additives on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 20: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, C. and Ross, M. A. 1997. Effect of glyphosate, glufosinate, and 2,4-D on Canada thistle and hemp dogbane root systems. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 33–35.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33: 531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar