Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T23:39:30.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spray Retention on Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis) and its Effect on Weed Control Efficacy by Pyricularia setariae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gary Peng ,
Thomas M. Wolf ,
Kelly N. Byer  and
Brian Caldwell
Gary Peng*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Center, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Thomas M. Wolf
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Center, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Kelly N. Byer
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Center, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Brian Caldwell
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Saskatoon Research Center, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pengg@agr.gc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of spray retention to the biocontrol of green foxtail with Pyricularia setariae was characterized using airbrush and broadcast sprayers at variable application volumes. Spray retention was determined by measuring amounts of a tracer dye solution on treated plants using fluorescence spectrophotometry. Depending on the droplet size, broadcast spraying at 1,000 to 2,000 L/ha produced a level of retention equivalent to that of airbrush spraying until runoff. The trend of P. setariae spore retention on green foxtail was similar to that of liquid retention. Broadcasting P. setariae at volumes producing equivalent spray retention to that of airbrush inoculation resulted in a similar level of weed control under greenhouse conditions. Reducing broadcast volume from 2,000 to 250 L/ha lowered biocontrol efficacy only slightly, when the concentration of P. setariae was increased proportionally to keep the applied fungal dose the same. A nozzle with a fine droplet spectrum (volume median diameter [VMD] 207 μm) had a significantly greater retention efficiency than a coarse spray (VMD 325 μm), but this retention difference was not translated into consistent enhancement of biocontrol efficacy. Higher retention increases may be necessary for more substantial improvement in biocontrol of green foxtail by P. setariae.

Keywords

Green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIPyricularia setariae Nisikado [synonym Pyricularia grisea (Cooke) Sacc.]Application volumebiocontroldroplet sizemycoherbicideAAFC, Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAAV, actual application volumeVMD, volume median diameter
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 86 - 93
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

Literature Cited

Beckie, H. J., Thomas, A. G., and Légère, A. 1999. Nature, occurrence, and cost of herbicide-resistant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) across Saskatchewan ecoregions. Weed Technol. 13:626–631.Google Scholar
Boyetchko, S. M., Peng, G., Sawchyn, K., Byer, K. N., and Charudattan, R. 2002. Evaluation of the multiple pathogen strategy for biological control of green foxtail. Phytopathology 92: (Suppl). S9.Google Scholar
Couture, L. 1980. Assessment of severity of foliage diseases of cereals in cooperative evaluation tests. Can. Plant Dis. Surv 60:8–10.Google Scholar
Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., Morrison, I. N., and Maw, M. G. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 70. Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:669–690.Google Scholar
Feng, P. C. C., Chiu, T., Sammons, R. D., and Ryerse, J. S. 2003. Droplet size affects glyphosate retention, absorption, and translocation in corn. Weed Sci. 51:443–448.Google Scholar
Gillespie, G. R. 1994. Basis for the differential response of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) biotypes to primisulfuron. Weed Sci. 42:8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, M. P., Dutton, L., and Lawrie, J. 2000. Formulation of microbial herbicides. Asp. Appl. Biol 57:171–177.Google Scholar
Greaves, M. P., Holloway, P. J., and Auld, B. A. 1998. Formulation of microbial herbicides. in Burges, H. D., ed. Formulation of Microbial Biopesticides: Beneficial Microorganisms, Nematodes and Seed Treatments. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Pp. 203–233.Google Scholar
Grover, R., Maybank, J., Caldwell, B. C., and Wolf, T. M. 1997. Airborne off-target losses and deposition characteristics from a self-propelled, high speed and high clearance ground sprayer. Can. J. Plant Sci 77:493–500.Google Scholar
Hart, S. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1992. Influence of adjuvants on the efficacy, absorption, and spray retention of primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 6:592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, G. S. and Brunskill, R. T. 1958. Reflection of water drops from surfaces. in Danielli, J. F., Parkhurst, K.G.A., and Giddiford, A. C., eds. Surface Phenomena in Chemistry and Biology. London, UK: Pergamon. Pp. 214–223.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. and Morrison, I. N. 1996. Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate and cyclohexanedione herbicides in green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 44:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsfall, J. G. and Barratt, R. W. 1945. An improved grading system for measuring plant diseases. Phytopathology 35:655.Google Scholar
Jones, K. A. 1998. Spray application criteria. in Burges, H. D., ed. Formulation of Microbial Biopesticides: Beneficial Microorganisms, Nematodes, and Seed Treatments. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Pp. 367–375.Google Scholar
Kidder, D. W. and Behrens, R. 1988. Plant responses to haloxyfop as influenced by water stress. Weed Sci. 36:305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R., and Van Acker, R. C. 2002. Manitoba Weed Survey of Cereal and Oilseed Crops in 2002. Weed Survey Series Publ. 02-2. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre. 191 p.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. A. 1992. Targets. in Pesticide Application Methods. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 18–51.Google Scholar
Moerkerk, M. R. and Combellack, J. H. 1992. The relationship between spray retention and herbicidal efficacy of diclofop-methyl. in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 311–317.Google Scholar
Nordbo, E., Kristensen, K., and Kirknel, E. 1993. Effects of wind direction, wind speed and travel speed on spray deposition. Pestic. Sci 38:33–41.Google Scholar
Peng, G., Byer, K. N., and Bailey, K. L. 2004. Pyricularia setariae: a potential bioherbicide agent for control of green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 52:105–114.Google Scholar
Peng, G., Wolf, T. M., Byer, K. N., and Caldwell, B. 2001. Spray retention on green foxtail (Setaria viridis) using airbrush and broadcast sprayers and its impact on the efficacy of a mycoherbicide agent. in Ni, H. W. and Zhen, G. Y., eds. 18th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. Beijing, China: Standard. Pp. 699–706.Google Scholar
Redman, C. E., King, E. P., and Brown, I. F. Jr. 1969. Tables for converting Barratt and Horsfall rating scores to estimated mean percentages. Indianapolis, IN: Elanco Products. 8 p.Google Scholar
Reichard, D. L. 1988. Drop formation and impaction on the plant. Weed Technol. 2:82–87.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. G. 1987. Effect of drop trajectory on spray deposits on crop and weeds. Plant Prot. Q 2:108–111.Google Scholar
Spillman, J. J. 1984. Spray impaction, retention and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pestic. Sci 15:97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamm Katovich, E. J., Becker, R. L., and Kinkaid, B. D. 1996. Influence of nontarget neighbors and spray volume on retention and efficacy of triclopyr in purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Weed Sci. 44:143–147.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Frick, B. L., Van Acker, R. C., Knezevic, S. Z., and Joosse, D. 1998. Manitoba Weed Survey of Cereal and Oilseed Crops in 1997. Weed Survey Series Publ. 98-1. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre. 192 p.Google Scholar
Wisniewska, H. 1991. Effect of spray volume, plant species and surfactant on spray retention. Bulletin of Vegetable Crops Research Work 37:149–160.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Harrison, S. K., Hall, F. R., and Cooper, J. 2000. Optimizing postemergence herbicide deposition and efficacy through application variables in no-till systems. Weed Sci. 48:761–768.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Liu, S. H., Caldwell, B. C., and Hsiao, A. I. 1997. Calibration of greenhouse spray chambers—the importance of dynamic nozzle patternation. Weed Technol. 11:428–435.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Stumborg, M., and Grover, R. 1995. Evaluation of a chamber for scanning agricultural nozzles using an Aerometrics phase/Doppler particle analyzer. Can. Agric. Eng 37:305–410.Google Scholar
Xie, H. S., Caldwell, B. C., Hsiao, A. I., Quick, W. A., and Chao, J. F. 1995. Spray deposition of fenoxaprop and imazamethabenz on wild oat (Avena fatua) as influenced by environmental factors. Weed Sci. 43:179–183.Google Scholar