Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-dr4jh Total loading time: 0.204 Render date: 2021-06-20T04:07:54.603Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Effect of Formulations and Spray Nozzles on 2,4-D Spray Drift under Field Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2018

Augusto Kalsing
Affiliation:
Field Scientist, Crop Protection R&D, Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda, Mogi Mirim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Caio V. S. Rossi
Affiliation:
Field Scientist, Crop Protection R&D, Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda, Mogi Mirim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Felipe R. Lucio
Affiliation:
Field Scientist, Crop Protection R&D, Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda, Mogi Mirim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luiz H. S. Zobiole
Affiliation:
Field Scientist, Crop Protection R&D, Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda, Mogi Mirim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luis C. V. da Cunha
Affiliation:
Field Scientist, Crop Protection R&D, Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda, Mogi Mirim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Guilherme B. Minozzi
Affiliation:
Field Scientist, Crop Protection R&D, Dow AgroSciences Industrial Ltda, Mogi Mirim, São Paulo, Brazil.
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Six trials were conducted during 2014/15 and 2015/16 growing seasons in Brazil to determine the effect of 2,4-D formulations and spray nozzles on 2,4-D spray drift under conventional field conditions. An experimental 2,4-D choline formulation with Colex-D® Technology (GF-3073) and a 2,4-D dimethylamine (DMA) formulation were applied with either XR and AIXR flat-fan spray nozzles. Each plot was 30 m wide by 24 m long (720 m2) with 60 glyphosate-resistant soybean rows spaced 50 cm apart and also 35 potted tomato plants distributed on a grid across the plot 5-m apart. Applications were performed one meter away from the plot edge perpendicular to the soybean rows when wind direction was parallel to the rows with less than 30 degrees of angle deviation. Spray drift treatments were applied in 100 L ha−1 with tractor sprayers at 276 kPa equipped with a 7-m wide boom at 50 cm above the canopy of the soybean plant, operating at 6.8 km h−1. The distance from the plot edge to the farthest plant with 2,4-D symptoms was assessed for every four soybean rows at 10 and 20 days after treatment (DAT) and potted tomatoes at 10 DAT. GF-3073 reduced the distance of the farthest injured plant with 2,4-D symptoms compared to the 2,4-D DMA formulation regardless of the spray nozzle, assessment date and sensitive species. GF-3073 applied through the AIXR nozzle reduced the relative drift affected area to the standard by 68% at 10 DAT and 67% at 20 DAT for soybean and 60% at 10 DAT for potted tomatoes.

Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
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.

References

Anonymous (2017) Enlist™ weed control system product use guide. Dow AgroSciences LLC. http://www.enlist.com/en/how-to-use. Accessed: January 25, 2018Google Scholar
Antuniassi, UR, Moreira, CAF, Pinheiro, ACCT, Lucio, FR (2016) Droplet spectra and drift potential generated by a ready mix herbicide formulation. Pages 422422 in, Proceedings of the 7th International Weed Science Congress. Prague, CR: International Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Constantin, J, De Oliveira Júnior, RS, Fagliari, JR, Pagliari, PH, De Arantes, JGZ, Cavalieri, SD, Framesqui, VP, Gonçalves, DA (2007) Effect of sub-lethal dosages of 2,4-D on cotton yield and crop suceptibility as a function of its development stage. Eng Agríc 27:2429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contiero, RL, Biffe, DF, Constantin, J, De Oliveira Júnior, RS, Braz, GBP, Lucio, FR, Schleier, JJ (2016) Effects of nozzle types and 2,4-D formulations on spray deposition. J Environ Sci Health B 51:888893 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagliari, JR, de Oliveira, RS, Constantin, J (2005) Impact of sublethal doses of 2,4-D, simulating drift, on tomato yield. J Environ Sci Health 40:201206 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsot, AS, Unsworth, JB, Linders, JB, Roberts, G, Rautman, D, Harris, C, Carazo, E (2010) Agrochemical spray drift; assessment and mitigation. J Environ Sci Health B 46:123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, JC, O’Donnell, CC, Chauhan, BS, Adkins, SW, Kruger, GR, Wang, R, Urach Ferreira, PHU, Hewitt, AJ (2015) Determining the uniformity and consistency of droplet size across spray drift reducing nozzles in a wind tunnel. Crop Protec 76:16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, T (2004) Quality in pesticide application technology. Pages 93109 in Raetano CG & Antuniassi UR eds. Quality in Application Technology. Botucatu, Brazil: Fepap Google Scholar
Foloni, LL ed (2016) O herbicida 2,4-D: Uma visão geral (1st edn.) Ribeirão Preto, Brazil: Labcom Total. 252 pGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, AT, Avila, LA, Camargo, ER, Moura, DS, Marchezan, MG, Pivetta, AP (2015) Influência de Adjuvantes e Pontas de Pulverização na Deriva de Aplicação do Glyphosate. Planta Daninha 33:375386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinty, J, Baumann, PA, Hoffmann, WC, Fritz, BK (2016) Evaluation of the spray droplet size spectra of drift-reducing agricultural spray nozzle designs. Am J Exp Agric 11:15 Google Scholar
Miller, PCH, Butler Ellis, MC (2000) Effects of formulation on spray nozzle performance for applications from ground-based boom sprayers. Crop Prot 19:609615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, CAF, Antuniassi, UR, Pinheiro, ACCT, Lucio, FR, Jesus, MG, Santana, TM, Berna, R (2016) Espectro de gotas e potencial de deriva de uma nova formulação de 2,4-D. Pages 786786 in Proceedings of the 30th Brazilian Weed Science Congress. Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil: Brazilian Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Richburg, JS, Wright, TR, Braxton, LB, Robinson, AE, inventors; Dow Agrosciences, assignee (12 July 2012) Increased tolerance of DHT-enabled plants to auxinic herbicides resulting from MOIETY differences in auxinic molecule structures. U.S. patent 13,345,236Google Scholar
Shaner, G, Finney, RE (1977) The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the expression of slow-mildewing resistance in Knox wheat. Phytopathology 77:10511056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Bo Braxton, L, Richburg, JS (2015) Evaluating the volatility of three formulations of 2,4-D when applied in the field. Weed Technology 29:177184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7
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.

Effect of Formulations and Spray Nozzles on 2,4-D Spray Drift under Field Conditions
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.

Effect of Formulations and Spray Nozzles on 2,4-D Spray Drift under Field Conditions
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.

Effect of Formulations and Spray Nozzles on 2,4-D Spray Drift under Field Conditions
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? *