In the occurrence of dicamba drift, it is not well understood what measurements from soybean plants would correlate with damage to soybean offspring; therefore, possible relationships are of great interest. Sixteen drift trials were established in 2014 and 2015 at the Northeast Research and Extension Center in Keiser, AR. A single 8-m-wide by 30- or 60-m-long pass with a high-clearance sprayer was made in each soybean field, resulting in a dicamba drift event. Seeds were collected from plants in each drift trial and planted in the field in 2015 and 2016. Data were subjected to correlation analysis to determine pairwise associations among parent and offspring observations. Auxin-like symptomology in offspring consistent with dicamba, primarily as leaf cupping, appeared in plots at the unifoliate and first trifoliate stages. Auxin-like symptoms were more prevalent in offspring collected from plants from later reproductive stages as opposed to early reproductive stages. The highest correlation coefficients occurred when parent plants were treated at the R5 growth stage. Parent mature pod malformation was correlated with offspring emergence (r=−0.37, P=0.0082), vigor (r=−0.57, P ≤ 0.0001), injury (r=0.93, P ≤ 0.0001), and percent of plants injured (r=0.92, P ≤ 0.0001). This research documents that soybean damaged from dicamba drift during the R1 to R6 growth stages can negatively affect offspring and that occurrence of pod malformation after dicamba drift at the R5 growth stage may be indicative of injury to the offspring.

It is well established that dicamba can cause severe injury to soybean that is not resistant to dicamba. Dicamba-resistant (DR) cotton became available in 2015, followed by DR soybean in 2016; in late 2016 came the release of new dicamba formulations approved for topical use in cotton and soybeans. Until this approval, use of dicamba was limited to primarily corn, small grains, range and pasture, and eco-fallow acres. Hence, studies were conducted in 2015 and 2016 to examine off-target movement of two dicamba formulations using non-DR soybean as a bio-indicator. Diglycolamine (DGA) and N,N-Bis(3-aminopropyl)methylamine (BAPMA) dicamba were applied simultaneously at 560 g ae ha–1 in the center of two side-by-side 8-ha fields to vegetative glufosinate-resistant soybean. On the same day, a rate response experiment was established encompassing nine different dicamba rates of each formulation. Results from the rate response experiment indicate that soybean is equally sensitive to DGA and BAPMA dicamba. In 2015, a rain event occurring 6 to 8 h after application of the large drift trial probably limited off-target movement by incorporating some of the herbicide into the soil. As a result, secondary drift was less in 2015 than in 2016. However, minimal secondary injury (<5%) occurred 12 m farther into DGA dicamba plots in 2015. In 2016, secondary movement was decreased by 72 m when BAPMA dicamba was used compared to DGA dicamba. Appreciable secondary movement of both DGA and BAPMA dicamba is possible following in-crop applications of either formulated product to soybean in early to mid-summer. Additionally, the risk for secondary movement of BAPMA dicamba is slightly less than for DGA dicamba.

It is well established that soybean that does not contain the dicamba-resistant (DR) trait is highly sensitive to off-target exposure to dicamba. However, there is limited information on the effect of low doses of dicamba plus glyphosate mixtures on dicamba-sensitive soybean—a mixture likely to be used on a vast acreage of dicamba/glyphosate-resistant soybean. The objective of this research was to examine leaf and pod malformation, along with height and yield effects, when dicamba, glyphosate, or a mixture of the two was applied to soybean sensitive to both dicamba and glyphosate at sublethal doses. Field applications were made at three growth stages (R1, R3, and R5) at multiple locations. Two glyphosate rates (1/64 and 1/256 of the labeled rate of 870 g ae ha−1) and two dicamba rates (1/64 and 1/256 of the labeled rate of 560 g ae ha−1) were used. Adding glyphosate to dicamba increased leaf malformation by 6% more than dicamba alone when applied at the R1 soybean growth stage. After R3 applications, pod malformation was 10% greater in treatments containing dicamba and glyphosate than dicamba alone. Applications at R5 showed minimal leaf and pod malformation. Seed from field trials was planted in the greenhouse to evaluate the offspring. The number of offspring plants showing dicamba-like symptomology was not increased with the addition of glyphosate to dicamba. Overall, injury to offspring was similar in dicamba alone and dicamba plus glyphosate treatments; however, the number of plants injured increased when parent plants were exposed to sublethal doses of dicamba at R3 and R5 compared with R1 growth-stage exposure. Vigor was reduced in dicamba-containing treatments, but not glyphosate-alone treatments. Glyphosate addition to dicamba had no effect on vigor of soybean offspring. Although there is increased injury to parent plants when glyphosate is added to dicamba, this research demonstrates that glyphosate does not contribute to the negative effects of dicamba on soybean offspring.

Cotton growers rely heavily upon glufosinate and various residual herbicides applied preplant, PRE, and POST to control Palmer amaranth resistant to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Recently deregulated in the United States, cotton resistant to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate (B2XF cotton) offers a new platform for controlling herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth. A field experiment was conducted in North Carolina and Georgia to determine B2XF cotton tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate and to compare Palmer amaranth control by dicamba to a currently used, nondicamba program in both glufosinate- and glyphosate-based systems. Treatments consisted of glyphosate or glufosinate applied early POST (EPOST) and mid-POST (MPOST) in a factorial arrangement of treatments with seven dicamba options (no dicamba, PRE, EPOST, MPOST, PRE followed by [fb] EPOST, PRE fb MPOST, and EPOST fb MPOST) and a nondicamba standard. The nondicamba standard consisted of fomesafen PRE, pyrithiobac EPOST, and acetochlor MPOST. Dicamba caused no injury when applied PRE and only minor, transient injury when applied POST. At time of EPOST application, Palmer amaranth control by dicamba or fomesafen applied PRE, in combination with acetochlor, was similar and 13 to 17% greater than acetochlor alone. Dicamba was generally more effective on Palmer amaranth applied POST rather than PRE, and two applications were usually more effective than one. In glyphosate-based systems, greater Palmer amaranth control and cotton yield were obtained with dicamba applied EPOST, MPOST, or EPOST fb MPOST compared with the standard herbicides in North Carolina. In contrast, dicamba was no more effective than the standard herbicides in the glufosinate-based systems. In Georgia, dicamba was as effective as the standard herbicides in a glyphosate-based system only when dicamba was applied EPOST fb MPOST. In glufosinate-based systems in Georgia, dicamba was as effective as standard herbicides only when dicamba was applied twice.