Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-b6fb2 Total loading time: 0.18 Render date: 2021-09-25T07:36:31.961Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Extension Perspective on Grower Confusion in Adjuvant Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard K. Zollinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rzolling@ndsuext.nodak.edu.

Abstract

Lack of consistent regulation and marketing of adjuvants and complexity of the interaction among plant, herbicide, environment, water quality, and adjuvant have caused general confusion in adjuvant selection among growers. Choosing the best adjuvant is difficult. Growers must chose from thousands of commercial products and are confused by product descriptions with unfamiliar ingredients and functions. Confusing recommendations, aggressive marketing, and lack of unbiased research and educational information make matters even worse. Manufacturer lists of approved adjuvant products, guidelines that set minimum requirements to qualify adjuvants for use with herbicides, and packaging effective adjuvants with herbicides either in the herbicide formulation or packaged in a different container help reduce grower confusion. University adjuvant research and education have aided grower knowledge and understanding of adjuvants by field testing adjuvants and have influenced herbicide label wording and recommendations.

Type
Symposium
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

AgrEvo USA Company. 1998. Betamix, Betanex, and Progress Herbicide (Supplemental Labels). Wilmington, DE. 1 p.Google Scholar
AgrEvo USA Company. 1999. Betamix, Betanex, and Progress Herbicide (Supplemental Labels). Wilmington, DE. 1 p.Google Scholar
Cenex/Land O'Lakes Agronomy Company. 2000. 2000 Crop Protection Guide. St. Paul, MN. 193 p.Google Scholar
[CPR] Crop Protection Reference. 1999 Supplement. 1999 Adjuvant Reference. New York: C&P Press. 76 p.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1999. Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices on Sugarbeet in Eastern North Dakota and Minnesota—1999. Sugarbeet Res. and Ext. Rpt. 30: 3969.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1998. Special Survey on Micro-Rate. Sugarbeet Res. and Ext. Rpt. 29: 6471.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Bredehoeft, M. W. 1998. Postemergence Herbicides at the Micro-Rate and Normal Rates in 1998. Sugarbeet Res. and Ext. Rpt. 29: 7175.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Takeno, T. 1992. Effect of polysorbate surfactants with various hydrophylic-lipophilic balance (HLB) values on leaf surface ultrastructure and mobility of methazole in plants and soil. In Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 169186.Google Scholar
Gaskin, R., ed. 1995. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotorua, New Zealand. FRI Bulletin No. 193. 464 p.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 7: 663–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G. 1992. Compendium of Herbicide Adjuvants, 1st Edition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. 66 p.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Czajka, M., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1995. Nonionic surfactant properties affect enhancement of herbicides. In Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems 14: 278287. ASTM. STP1234.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Nalewaja, J. D., and Szelezniak, E. F. 1989. Esterified seed oils with herbicides. In Chow, P. N., Grant, C. A., Hinshalwood, A. M., and Simundsson, E., eds. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals II. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 139148.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Szelezniak, E. F., Anyszka, Z. M., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Foliar absorption and phytotoxicity of quizalofop with lipid compounds. Weed Sci. 40: 558562.Google Scholar
McMullan, P., ed. 1998. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, Volume I. Memphis, TN. 519 p.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J.D., Koziara, W., Matysiak, R., and Manthey, F. A. 1995. Relationship of surfactant HLB to glyphosate phytotoxicity. In Hall, F. R., Berger, P. D., and Collins, H. M., eds. Pesticide Formulation and Application Systems 14. Philadelphia: ASTM. pp. 269277.Google Scholar
NDSU Experiment Station. 1980-2000. North Dakota Weed Control Research, Fargo, ND. Department of Plant Sciences, NDSU.Google Scholar
Retzinger, J. E. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11: 384393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schönherr, J. and Bauer, H. 1992. Analysis of effects of surfactants on permeability of plant cuticles. In Adjuvants for Agrichemicals III. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 1735.Google Scholar
Terra Industries, Inc. 1999. Riverside Adjuvant Technical Handbook. Sioux City, IA. 140 p.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. K. 1992. Concerns within the pesticide industry relating to spray adjuvants. In Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 489501.Google Scholar
Wilfarm, L.L.C. 1999. Adjuvant and Surfactant Technical Guide. Gladstone, MO. 140 p.Google Scholar
Young, B. 2000. Compendium of Herbicide Adjuvants, 5th Edition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. 66 p.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. 1994. 1994 North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Fargo, ND: NDSU Ext. Serv. Ext. Circ. W-253. 82 p.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. 2000. 2000 North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Fargo, ND: NDSU Ext. Serv. Ext. Circ. W-253. 139 p.Google Scholar
3
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.

Extension Perspective on Grower Confusion in Adjuvant Selection
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.

Extension Perspective on Grower Confusion in Adjuvant Selection
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.

Extension Perspective on Grower Confusion in Adjuvant Selection
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? *