Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T21:47:47.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ammonium sulfate improves the efficacy of glyphosate on South African lovegrass (Eragrostis plana) under water stress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2021

Marlon O. Bastiani
Affiliation:
PhD Student, Crop Protection Graduate Program (Programa de pós-graduação em Fitossanidade), Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Capão do Leão, RS, Brazil
Nilda Roma-Burgos
Affiliation:
Professor of Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Ana C. Langaro
Affiliation:
PhD Student, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, MG, Brazil
Reiofeli A. Salas-Perez
Affiliation:
PhD Student, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Christopher E. Rouse
Affiliation:
PhD Student, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Marcus V. Fipke
Affiliation:
PhD Student, Crop Protection Graduate Program (Programa de pós-graduação em Fitossanidade), Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Capão do Leão, RS, Brazil
Fabiane P. Lamego*
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Embrapa Pecuária Sul, Bagé, RS, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Fabiane P. Lamego, Embrapa Pecuária Sul, BR 153 Km 632,9, Vila Industrial, Zona Rural, Cx Postal 242, Bagé, RS, 96401-970, Brazil. Email: fabiane.lamego@embrapa.br

Abstract

South African lovegrass (Eragrostis plana Nees) is the most important weed of native pastures in southern Brazil. Management options are limited under water-stress conditions, and glyphosate has been the main tool for control. This study compared four salts of glyphosate applied at three growth stages and determined the glyphosate tolerance level. In addition, the performance of ammonium sulfate (AMS) under two soil moisture conditions (50% and 100% of water-holding capacity) and the effect of AMS on absorption and translocation of radiolabeled [14C]glyphosate were evaluated. The potassium salt of glyphosate had the fastest activity across growth stages of E. plana, which is more vulnerable to glyphosate at the panicle initiation stage. Isopropylamine salt was the slowest-acting glyphosate formulation. Younger plants were typically more easily controlled than older plants at the full tillering stage. The addition of AMS increased the level of control of drought-stressed E. plana compared with glyphosate alone by increasing translocation out of the treated leaf and consequently increasing the concentration of glyphosate in the primary culm. These data can be used to plan an effective management program for E. plana that takes into account the developmental stage of desired pasture grass species.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Vipan Kumar, Kansas State University

References

Barbosa, FG (2016) The future of invasive African grasses in South America under climate change. Ecol Inform 36:114117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastiani, MO, Lamego, FP, Langaro, AC, Salas-Perez, RA, Rouse, CE, Burgos, NR (2018) Influence of growth stage on efficacy, absorption and translocation of glyphosate in Eragrostis plana. Page 267 in Proceedings of the 31st Congresso Brasileiro Da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas. Londrina, Brazil: Sociedade Brasileira das Plantas DaninhasGoogle Scholar
Corrêa, EB, Silveira, MCT, Morais, SL, Trentin, G, Perez, NB, Natividade, RS (2014) Characterization of tough lovegrass tillers dynamic related to glyphosate herbicide translocation. Abstract 1050 in Proceedings of the 23rd Congresso de Iniciação Científica. Pelotas, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Pelotas–UFPelGoogle Scholar
Degreeff, RD, Varanasi, AV, Dille, JA, Peterson, DE, Jugulam, M (2018) Influence of plant growth stage and temperature on glyphosate efficacy in common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Technol 32:448453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Ruiter, H, Meinen, E (1998) Influence of water stress and surfactant on the efficacy, absorption and translocation of glyphosate. Weed Sci 46:289296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadin, DA, Tornisielo, VL, Barroso, AAM, Ramos, S, Dos Reis, FC, Monquero, PA (2018) Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in Spermacoce verticillata and alternative herbicide control. Weed Res 58:389396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvani, J, Rizzardi, MA, Carneiro, CM, Bianchi, MA (2012) Lolium multiflorum foliar anatomy susceptible and resistant to glyphosate. Planta Daninha 30:407413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulart, ICGR, Nunes, AL, Kupas, V, Merotto Junior, A (2012) Interactions between herbicides and safeners to tough lovegrass control in rangelands. Cienc Rural 42:17221730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, KC, Ghanizadeh, H (2017) Herbicide application using wiper applicators—a review. Crop Prot 102:5662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, FD, Chester, LF (2000) Interaction of surfactants with plant cuticles. Weed Technol 14:807813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, DS, Marshall, EJP, Brain, P, Caseley, JC (2011) Effects of crop canopy structure on herbicide deposition and performance. Weed Res 51:310320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, JC, Ritz, C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köppen, W, Geiger, R, eds (1930) Handbuch der Klimatologie. Volume 5. Berlin: Gerbrüder Borntraegar. 44 pGoogle Scholar
Lacerda, ALDS, Victoria Filho, R (2004) Dose response curves in weeds with glyphosate use. Bragantia 63:7379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J, Smeda, RJ, Sellers, BA, Johnson, WG (2005) Influence of formulation and glyphosate salt on absorption and translocation in three annual weeds. Weed Sci 53:153159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Main, CL, Thompson, MA, Steckel, LE (2006) Comparison of glyphosate salts (isopropylamine, diammonium, and potassium) and calcium and magnesium concentrations on the control of various weeds. Weed Technol 20:164171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Matysiak, R (2000) Spray deposits from nicosulfuron with salts that affect efficacy. Weed Technol 14:740749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandula, VK, Vencill, WK (2015) Herbicide absorption and translocation in plants using radioisotopes. Weed Sci 12:140151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, RB, Dario, G, Alves, KA, Gandolfo, MA (2015) Influence of the glyphosate formulations on wettability and evaporation time of droplets on different targets. Planta Daninha 33:599606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palma-Bautista, C, Torra, J, Garcia, MJ, Bracamonte, E, Rojano-Delgado, AM, Alcantara-De La Cruz, R, De Prado, R (2019) Reduced absorption and impaired translocation endows glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri harvested in glyphosate-resistant soybean from Argentina. J Agric Food Chem 67:10521060 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, DT (1995) Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci 43:483490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, NB (2010) Weed control in pastures: use of Clean Field technology. Bagé, RS, Brazil: Comunicado Técnico 72 da Embrapa Pecuária Sul. Pp 1–7Google Scholar
Pline, WA, Hatzios, KK, Hagood, ES (2000) Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol 14:667674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, RJ, Bailey, WA, Armel, GR, Whaley, CM, Wilson, HP, Hines, TE (2003) Responses of selected weeds and glyphosate-resistant cotton and soybean to two glyphosate salts. Weed Technol 17:560564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojano-Delgado, AM, Cruz-Hipolito, H, De Prado, R, Luque De Castro, MD, Franco, AR (2012) Limited uptake, translocation and enhanced metabolic degradation contribute to glyphosate tolerance in Mucuna pruriens var. utilis plants. Phytochemistry 73:3441 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salisbury, C, Chandler, J, Merkle, M (1991) Ammonium sulfate enhancement of glyphosate and sc-0224 control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol 5:1821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, ABD, Bottcher, A, Kiyota, E, Mayer, JLS, Vicentini, R, Brito, MDS, Creste, S, Landell, MGA, Mazzafera, P (2015) Water stress alters lignin content and related gene expression in two sugarcane genotypes. J Agric Food Chem 63:47084720 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Satchivi, N, Wax, LM, Stoller, EW, Briskin, DP (2000) Absorption and translocation of glyphosate isopropylamine and trimethylsulfonium salts in Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi . Weed Sci 48:675679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Nurse, R, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, P (2016) Benefit of adding ammonium sulfate or additional glyphosate to glyphosate in corn and soybean. Agric Sci 7:759770 Google Scholar
Travlos, I, Cheimona, N, Bilalis, D (2017) Glyphosate efficacy of different salt formulations and adjuvant additives on various weeds. Agronomy 7:19 Google Scholar
Wills, GD, Mcwhorter, CG (1985) Effect of inorganic salts on the toxicity and translocation of glyphosate and MSMA in purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci 33:755761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, LH (2016) The role of climate change and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on weed management: herbicide efficacy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 231:304309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bastiani et al. supplementary material

Bastiani et al. supplementary material

Download Bastiani et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.1 MB