Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-vbn2q Total loading time: 0.369 Render date: 2021-08-02T15:15:41.483Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

AMADS Increases the Efficacy of Glyphosate Formulations on Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dale L. Shaner
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Water Management Research, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Phil Westra
Affiliation:
Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Scott Nissen
Affiliation:
Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the effect of 1-aminomethanamide dihydrogen tetraoxosulfate (AMADS) as a spray adjuvant on the efficacy of three different glyphosate formulations, the isopropylamine salt (glyphosate-IPA), potassium salt (glyphosate-K), and the acid of glyphosate dissolved in AMADS (glyphosate-A). All formulations were tested at multiple rates with and without AMADS (2% v/v) on greenhouse-grown corn, and growth inhibition was determined by measuring the elongation of the newest emerging leaf between 1 and 7 d after treatment. AMADS increased the efficacy of all three glyphosate formulations by threefold to fourfold. The IC50 values for glyphosate-IPA, glyphosate-K, and glyphosate-A without AMADS on corn were 77, 54, and 53 g ae/ha, respectively; and with AMADS the values were 20, 18, and 21 g/ha, respectively. AMADS was more effective than ammonium sulfate (2% w/v) in overcoming the antagonism of hard water (200 parts per million Ca+2) on glyphosate-K efficacy on corn. The rainfastness of glyphosate-IPA, glyphosate-A, and glyphosate-K was improved with AMADS.

Type
Research Article
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

Alama, M. and Broner, I. 2003. Subsurface Drip. Colorado State University, Coop. Exten. Bull. 4.716. 3 p.Google Scholar
Belles, D., Shaner, D., Westra, P., and Brunk, G. 2004. Comparison of efficacy, absorption and translocation of an isopropylamine salt and acid formulation of glyphosate in velvetleaf. Proc. 57th West. Soc. Weed Sci. 57:38.Google Scholar
Feng, C. C. P., Ryerse, J. S., and Sammons, R. D. 1998. Correlation of leaf damage with uptake and translocation of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Technol. 12:300307.Google Scholar
Feng, P. C., Sandbrink, J. J., and Sammons, R. D. 2000. Retention, uptake and translocation of 14C-glyphosate from track-spray applications, and correlation to rainfastness in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Technol. 14:127132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. J., Hart, C. A., and Jones, C. A. 2000. Plants as sources of cations antagonistic to glyphosate efficacy. Pest. Manag. Sci. 56:351368.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Blackshaw, R. E. 2003. Leaf extension rate may help determine when low wild oat herbicide rates will be effective. Weed Technol. 17: 839–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Young, B. G. 2001. Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to trimethylsulfonium and isopropylamine salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:745749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaper, C. and Holloway, P. J. 2000. Adjuvants and glyphosate efficacy. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:313319.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Green, J. D. 2004. Confusing issues about glyphosate. Web page: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Agronomy/Weeds. Accessed: February 25, 2004.Google Scholar
Molin, W. T. and Hirase, K. 2004. Comparison of commercial glyphosate formulations for control of prickly sida, purple nutsedge, morningglory and sicklepod. Weed Biol. Manag. 4:136141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. L., Shaw, D. R., and Snipes, C. E. 2001. Weed control from herbicide combinations with three formulations of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:522558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, D., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 2003. Substitutes for ammonium sulfate as additives with glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 17:576581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K., Messersmith, C. G., and Nalawaja, J. D. 2003. Spray volume, formulation, ammonium sulfate, and nozzle effects on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 17:589598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Bailey, W. A., Armel, G. R., Whaley, C. M., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Responses of selected weeds and glyphosate-resistant cotton and soybean to two glyphosate salts. Weed Technol. 17:560564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryerse, J. S., Downer, R. A., Sammons, R. D., and Feng, P. C. C. 2004. Effect of glyphosate spray droplets on leaf cytology in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 52:302309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchivi, N. M., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Briskin, D. P. 2000. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate isopropylamine and trimethylsulfonium salts in Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi . Weed Sci. 48:675679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in PROC MIXED. Proc. 21st SAS® Users Group International Meeting. Nashville, TN. Pp. 12431246.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218227.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1998. Agricultural chemical usage: 1997 Field Crop Summary. USDA-NASS-ERS Report May 1998. 97 p.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2004. Agricultural chemical usage: 2003 field crop summary. USDA-NASS-ERS Report May 2004. 158 p.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Knepp, A. W., Wax, L. M., and Hart, S. E. 2003. Glyphosate translocation in common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in response to ammonium sulfate. Weed Sci. 51:151156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

AMADS Increases the Efficacy of Glyphosate Formulations on Corn
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

AMADS Increases the Efficacy of Glyphosate Formulations on Corn
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

AMADS Increases the Efficacy of Glyphosate Formulations on Corn
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *