Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T16:59:49.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diluent Volume Influences Susceptibility of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Biotypes to Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Carla N. Duncan Yerkes  and
Stephen C. Weller
Carla N. Duncan Yerkes
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Purdue Univ., 1165 Hort. Bldg., W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1165
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Purdue Univ., 1165 Hort. Bldg., W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1165
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two biotypes of field bindweed differing in their susceptibility to glyphosate were used to determine if diluent or carrier volume and additional surfactant could overcome differences in intraspecific response to glyphosate. In greenhouse studies, glyphosate (formulated product) was applied at 1.68 kg/ha in three diluent volumes (142, 189, and 237 L/ha), with and without 1 % (v/v) additional amphoteric surfactant. Nonparametric and ordinal categorical analyses indicated that field bindweed biotype, diluent volume, and surfactant significantly increased glyphosate phytotoxicity 7 DAT. Only biotype and volume were significant 21 DAT. The tolerant biotype was less injured at the 189 and 237 L/ha volumes than the susceptible biotype. Field bindweed injury was similar at a diluent volume of 142 L/ha for both biotypes. These greenhouse studies suggest that control of field bindweed may be improved with glyphosate by using low spray volume in concert with additional surfactant.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinefield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. ♯3CONARDifferential herbicide responsecarrier volumesurfactantherbicide tolerant biotypeCONAR
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 565 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Agresti, A. 1984. Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. p. 31–74.Google Scholar
2. Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Anderson, V. L. and McLean, R. A. 1974. Design of Experiments: A Realistic Approach. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. p. 16–27.Google Scholar
4. Baker, E. A. 1980. Effect of cuticular components on foliar penetration. Pestic. Sci. 11:367–370.Google Scholar
5. DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32:472–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. DeGennaro, F. P. and Weller, S. C. 1984. Growth and reproductive characteristics of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes. Weed Sci. 32:525–528.Google Scholar
7. Dixon, W. J. 1983. Multiway tables—analysis by log-linear models. p. 176–181. BMDP Statistical Software. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
8. Duncan, C. N. and Weller, S. C. 1987. Heritability of glyphosate susceptibility among biotypes of field bindweed. J. Hered. 78:257–260.Google Scholar
9. Edmund, R. M. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Factors affecting postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025: spray volume, growth stage, and soil-applied alachlor and vernolate. Weed Sci. 35:216–223.Google Scholar
10. Ennis, W. B. Jr. and Williamson, R. E. 1963. Influence of droplet size on effectiveness of low-volume herbicidal sprays. Weeds 11:67–72.Google Scholar
11. Hodgson, J. M. 1964. Variation in ecotypes of Canada thistle. Weeds 12:167–171.Google Scholar
12. Hodgson, J. M. 1970. The response of Canada thistle ecotypes to 2,4-D, amitrole, and intensive cultivation. Weed Sci. 18:253–255.Google Scholar
13. Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. A. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. p. 124–125.Google Scholar
14. Jordan, T. N. 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactant on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 29:79–83.Google Scholar
15. Knoche, M. and Bukovac, M. J. 1993. Interaction of surfactant and leaf surface in glyphosate absorption. Weed Sci. 41:87–93.Google Scholar
16. McKinlay, K. S., Ashford, R., and Ford, R. J. 1974. Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci. 22:31–34.Google Scholar
17. McKinlay, K. S., Brandt, S. A., Morse, P., and Ashford, R. 1972. Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:450–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. McWhorter, C. G. 1963. Effects of surfactant concentration on johnsongrass control with dalapon. Weeds 11:83–86.Google Scholar
19. Rochecouste, E. 1962. Studies on the biotypes of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. I. Botanical investigations. Weed Res. 2:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Rochecouste, E. 1962. Studies on the biotypes of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. II. Growth response to trichloroacetic and 2,2-dichloropropionic acids. Weed Res. 2:136–145.Google Scholar
21. Saidak, W. J. and Marriage, P. B. 1976. Response of Canada thistle varieties to amitrole and glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:211–214.Google Scholar
22. Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Stock, D., Holloway, P. J., Grayson, B. T., and Whitehouse, P. 1993. Development of a predictive uptake model to rationalise selection of polyoxyethylene surfactant adjuvants for foliage-applied agrochemicals. Pestic. Sci. 37:233–245.Google Scholar
24. Turner, D. J. 1985. Effects on glyphosate performance of formulation, additives, and mixing with other herbicides. p. 221–240. Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworth & Co., London, England.Google Scholar
25. Whitworth, J. W. 1964. The reaction of strains of field bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 2:57–58.Google Scholar
26. Whitworth, J. W. and Muzik, T. J. 1967. Differential response of selected clones of bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 15:275–280.Google Scholar