Off-target movement of growth regulator herbicides can cause severe injury to susceptible plants. Apart from not spraying on windy days or at excessive boom heights, making herbicide applications using nozzles that produce large droplets is the preferred method for reducing herbicide drift. Although large droplets maintain a higher velocity and are more likely to reach the leaf surface in windy conditions, their ability to remain on the leaf surface is poorly understood. Upon impact with the leaf surface, droplets may shatter, bounce, roll-off, or be retained on a leaf surface. We examined how different nozzles, pressures, and adjuvants impact spray droplet adsorption on the leaf surface of common lambsquarters and soybean. Plants were grown in a greenhouse and sprayed in a spray chamber. Three nozzles (XR, AIXR, and TTI) were evaluated at 138, 259, and 379 kPa. Dicamba (0.14 kg ae ha⁻¹) was applied alone and with methylated seed oil (MSO), a non-ionic surfactant, silicone-based adjuvant, crop oil concentrate, or a drift reduction adjuvant. A 1, 3, 6, 8-pyrene tetra sulfonic acid tetra sodium salt was added as a tracer. Dicamba spray droplet adsorption when using the XR nozzle, which produced the smallest spray droplets, was 1.75 times greater than when applied with the TTI nozzle with the largest spray droplets. Applying dicamba with MSO increased adsorption on leaf surfaces nearly four times the amount achieved without an adjuvant. The lowest application pressure (138 kPa) increased dicamba spray volume adsorbed more than 10% compared to the higher pressures 259 and 379 kPa. By understanding the impacts of these application parameters on dicamba spray droplet adsorption, applicators can select application parameters, equipment, and adjuvants that will maximize the amount of dicamba spray volume retained on the target leaf surface while minimizing dicamba spray drift.

Herbicide-resistant Palmer amaranth is a troublesome weed in several agronomic crops and is a relatively new challenge to dry bean production in western Nebraska. Objectives were to evaluate preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) herbicides for control of acetolactate synthase–resistant Palmer amaranth and their effect on Palmer amaranth density and biomass as well as dry bean injury and yield in western Nebraska. Field experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2019 near Scottsbluff, NE. The experiments were arranged as a two-factor strip-plot design. The strip-plot factor consisted of no-PRE or pendimethalin (1,070 g ai ha–1) + dimethenamid-P (790 g ai h–1) applied PRE. The main-plot factor was POST herbicides, which consisted of various mixtures of imazamox, bentazon, or fomesafen applied in a single or sequential application at labeled rates, and reduced rates of imazamox (9 g ai ha–1) + bentazon (314 g ai ha–1) + fomesafen (70 g ai ha–1) applied in single or sequential (two or three) applications. PRE herbicides reduced Palmer amaranth density and biomass during both years and increased dry bean yield in 2017. POST treatments containing fomesafen improved Palmer amaranth control compared with treatments containing imazamox and bentazon only. The sequential-application reduced-rate POST system did not improve Palmer amaranth control compared to one POST application containing fomesafen at a labeled rate in either year. Using pendimethalin + dimethenamid-P PRE followed by POST treatments containing imazamox + bentazon + fomesafen at a labeled rate provided 86% and 99% Palmer amaranth control in 2017 and 2019, respectively.

The critical timing of weed removal (CTWR) is the point in crop development when weed control must be initiated to prevent crop yield loss due to weed competition. A field study was conducted in 2018 and 2020 near Scottsbluff, NE, to determine how the use of preemergence herbicides affects the CTWR in dry bean. The experiment was arranged as a split plot, with herbicide treatment and weed removal timing as main and sub-plot factors, respectively. Herbicide treatments consisted of no-preemergence application, or pendimethalin (1,070 g ai ha–1) + dimethenamid-P (790 g ai ha–1) applied preemergence. Sub-plot treatments included season-long weed-free, weed removal at: V1, V3, V6, R2, and R5 dry bean growth stages, and a season-long weedy control. A four-parameter logistic model was used to estimate the impact of time of weed removal, for all response variables including dry bean yield, dry bean plants m–1 row, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, and seed weight. The CTWR based on 5% yield reduction was estimated to range from the V1 growth stage [(16 d after emergence (DAE)] to the R1 growth stage (39 DAE) in the no-preemergence herbicide treatment. In the preemergence-applied treatment, the CTWR began at the R2 growth stage (47 DAE). Number of dry bean plants m–1 row was reduced in the no-preemergence treatment when weed removal was delayed beyond the R2 growth stage in the 2020 field season. The use of preemergence herbicides prevented a reduction in the number of pods per plant in 2020, and the number of seeds per pod in 2018 and 2020. In 2018, the number of pods per plant was reduced by 73% when no preemergence herbicide was applied, compared to 26% in the preemergence-applied treatment. The use of preemergence-applied soil-active herbicides in dry bean delayed the CTWR and preserved yield potential.

Late-emerging summer annual weeds are difficult to control in dry bean production fields. Dry bean is a poor competitor with weeds, due to its slow rate of growth and delayed canopy formation. Palmer amaranth is particularly difficult to control due to season-long emergence and resistance to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides. Dry bean growers rely on PPI and preemergence residual herbicides for the foundation of their weed control programs; however, postemergence herbicides are often needed for season-long weed control. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate effect of planting date and herbicide program on late-season weed control in dry bean in western Nebraska. Field experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2018 near Scottsbluff, NE. The experiment was arranged in a split-plot design, with planting date and herbicide program as main-plot and subplot factors, respectively. Delayed planting was represented by a delay of 15 d after standard planting time. The treatments EPTC + ethalfluralin, EPTC + ethalfluralin followed by (fb) imazamox + bentazon, and pendimethalin + dimethenamid-P fb imazamox + bentazon, resulted in the lowest Palmer amaranth density at 3 wk after treatment and the highest dry bean yield. The imazamox + bentazon treatment provided poor Palmer amaranth control and did not consistently result in Palmer amaranth density and biomass reduction compared with the nontreated control. In 2018, the delayed planting treatment had reduced Palmer amaranth biomass with the pendimethalin + dimethenamid-P treatment, as compared with standard planting. Delaying planting did not reduce dry bean yield and had limited benefit in improving weed control in dry bean.

A prepackaged mixture of desmedipham + phenmedipham was previously labeled for control of Amaranthus spp. in sugarbeet. Currently, there are no effective POST herbicide options to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet growers are interested in using desmedipham + phenmedipham to control escaped Palmer amaranth. In 2019, a greenhouse experiment was initiated near Scottsbluff, NE, to determine the selectivity of desmedipham and phenmedipham between Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet. Three populations of Palmer amaranth and four sugarbeet hybrids were evaluated. Herbicide treatments consisted of desmedipham and phenmedipham applied singly or as mixtures at an equivalent rate. Herbicides were applied when Palmer amaranth and sugarbeet were at the cotyledon stage, or two true-leaf sugarbeet stage and when Palmer amaranth was 7 cm tall. The selectivity indices for desmedipham, phenmedipham, and desmedipham + phenmedipham were 1.61, 2.47, and 3.05, respectively, at the cotyledon stage. At the two true-leaf application stage, the highest rates of desmedipham and phenmedipham were associated with low mortality rates in sugarbeet, resulting in a failed response of death. The highest rates of desmedipham + phenmedipham caused a death response of sugarbeet; the selectivity index was 2.15. Desmedipham treatments resulted in lower LD50 estimates for Palmer amaranth compared to phenmedipham, indicating that desmedipham can provide greater levels of control for Palmer amaranth. However, desmedipham also caused greater injury in sugarbeet, producing lower LD50 estimates compared to phenmedipham. Desmedipham + phenmedipham provided 90% or greater control of cotyledon-size Palmer amaranth at a labeled rate but also caused high levels of sugarbeet injury. Neither desmedipham, phenmedipham, nor desmedipham + phenmedipham was able to control 7-cm tall Palmer amaranth at previously labeled rates. Results indicate that desmedipham + phenmedipham can only control Palmer amaranth if applied at the cotyledon stage and a high level of sugarbeet injury is acceptable.

Seven half-day regional listening sessions were held between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide-resistance management. The objective of the listening sessions was to connect with stakeholders and hear their challenges and recommendations for addressing herbicide resistance. The coordinating team hired Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC, to facilitate all the sessions. They and the coordinating team used in-person meetings, teleconferences, and email to communicate and coordinate the activities leading up to each regional listening session. The agenda was the same across all sessions and included small-group discussions followed by reporting to the full group for discussion. The planning process was the same across all the sessions, although the selection of venue, time of day, and stakeholder participants differed to accommodate the differences among regions. The listening-session format required a great deal of work and flexibility on the part of the coordinating team and regional coordinators. Overall, the participant evaluations from the sessions were positive, with participants expressing appreciation that they were asked for their thoughts on the subject of herbicide resistance. This paper details the methods and processes used to conduct these regional listening sessions and provides an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those processes.

Herbicide resistance is ‘wicked’ in nature; therefore, results of the many educational efforts to encourage diversification of weed control practices in the United States have been mixed. It is clear that we do not sufficiently understand the totality of the grassroots obstacles, concerns, challenges, and specific solutions needed for varied crop production systems. Weed management issues and solutions vary with such variables as management styles, regions, cropping systems, and available or affordable technologies. Therefore, to help the weed science community better understand the needs and ideas of those directly dealing with herbicide resistance, seven half-day regional listening sessions were held across the United States between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide resistance management. The major goals of the sessions were to gain an understanding of stakeholders and their goals and concerns related to herbicide resistance management, to become familiar with regional differences, and to identify decision maker needs to address herbicide resistance. The messages shared by listening-session participants could be summarized by six themes: we need new herbicides; there is no need for more regulation; there is a need for more education, especially for others who were not present; diversity is hard; the agricultural economy makes it difficult to make changes; and we are aware of herbicide resistance but are managing it. The authors concluded that more work is needed to bring a community-wide, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of managing weeds within the context of the whole farm operation and for communicating the need to address herbicide resistance.

Drift reduction technologies aim to eliminate the smaller droplets that occur with some sprays because these small droplets can move off-target in the wind. Commonly used drift reduction technologies such as air-induction nozzles and spray additives impact on reducing off-target movement is well documented, however, the impact on herbicide penetration into an established crop canopy is not well known. This experiment evaluated the canopy penetration and efficacy of glyphosate treatments applied using four nozzle types (XR11005, AIXR11005, AITTJ11005, and TTI11005), two carrier volume rates (94 and 187 L ha-1), and glyphosate applications with and without a commercial drift reducing adjuvant. Applications were made to corn and soybean fields using glyphosate applied at 1.26 kg ae ha-1 with liquid ammonium sulfate at 5% v/v. A rhodamine dye was added (0.025% v/v) to the spray tank of each mixture as a tracer. MylarTM cards were placed in the field above the canopy, in the middle canopy, and on the ground for corn and above and below canopy for soybean. Five cards were at each position in the canopy arranged across the crop row. The addition of a drift reducing adjuvant did not impact canopy penetration. Doubling the carrier volume increased the amount of penetration proportionally and as such the percent reduction was not different. The TTI11005 nozzle had the greatest amount of spray penetration (28%) in the soybean canopies and the XR nozzle had the greatest amount (50%) in the corn canopies. Deposition across the row, beginning in-between the row crop and ending in the row of the crop was 44, 18, and 8% for soybean and 59, 50, and 36% for corn. For both crops, more than half of the herbicide application was captured in the crop canopy. Proper nozzle selection for canopy type can increase herbicide penetration and increasing the carrier volume will increase penetration proportionally.

Recent concerns regarding herbicide spray drift, its subsequent effect on the surrounding environment, and herbicide efficacy have prompted applicators to focus on methods to reduce off-target movement of herbicides. Herbicide applications are complex processes, and as such, few studies have been conducted that consider multiple variables that affect the droplet spectrum of herbicide sprays. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of nozzle type, orifice size, herbicide active ingredient, pressure, and carrier volume on the droplet spectra of the herbicide spray. Droplet spectrum data were collected on 720 combinations of spray-application variables, which included six spray solutions (five herbicides and water alone), four carrier volumes, five nozzles, two orifice sizes, and three operating pressures. The laboratory study was conducted using a Sympatec laser diffraction instrument to determine the droplet spectrum characteristics of each treatment combination. When averaged over each main effect, nozzle type had the greatest effect on droplet size. Droplet size rankings for nozzles, ranked smallest to largest using volume median diameter (Dv0.5) values, were the XR, TT, AIXR, AI, and TTI nozzle with 176% change in Dv0.5 values from the XR to the TTI nozzle. On average, increasing the nozzle orifice size from a 11003 orifice to a 11005 increased the Dv0.5 values 8%. When compared with the water treatment, cloransulam (FirstRate) did not change the Dv0.5 value. Clethodim (Select Max), glyphosate (Roundup PowerMax), lactofen (Cobra), and glufosinate (Ignite) all reduced the Dv0.5 value 5, 11, 11, and 18%, respectively, when compared with water averaged over the other variables. Increasing the pressure of AIXR, TT, TTI, and XR nozzles from 138 to 276 kPa and the AI nozzle from 276 to 414 kPa decreased the Dv0.5 value 25%. Increasing the pressure from 276 to 414 kPa and from 414 to 552 kPa for the same nozzle group and AI nozzle decreased the Dv0.5 value 14%. Carrier volume had the least effect on the Dv0.5 value. Increasing the carrier volume from 47 to 187 L ha−1 increased the Dv0.5 value 5%, indicating that droplet size of the herbicides tested were not highly dependent on delivery volume. The effect on droplet size of the variables examined in this study from greatest effect to least effect were nozzle, operating pressure, herbicide, nozzle orifice size, and carrier volume.

POST weed control in soybean in the United States is difficult because weed resistance to herbicides has become more prominent. Herbicide applicators have grown accustomed to low carrier volume rates that are typical with glyphosate applications. These low carrier volumes are efficient for glyphosate applications and allow applicators to treat a large number of hectares in a timely manner. Alternative modes of action can require greater carrier volumes to effectively control weeds. Glyphosate, glufosinate, lactofen, fluazifop-P, and 2,4-D were evaluated in field and greenhouse studies using 47, 70, 94, 140, 187, and 281 L ha−1 carrier volumes. Spray droplet size spectra for each herbicide and carrier volume combination were also measured and used to determine their impact on herbicide efficacy. Glyphosate efficacy was maximized using 70 to 94 L ha−1 carrier volumes using droplets classified as medium. Glufosinate efficacy was maximized at 140 L ha−1 and decreased as droplet diameter decreased. For 2,4-D applications, efficacy increased when using carrier volumes equal to or greater than 94 L ha−1. Lactofen was most responsive to changes in carrier volume and performed best when applied in carrier volumes of at least 187 L ha−1. Carrier volume had little impact on fluazifop-P efficacy in this study and efficacy decreased when used on taller plants. Based on these data, applicators should use greater carrier volumes when using contact herbicides in order to maximize herbicide efficacy.

Herbicide applications often do not reach their full potential because only a small amount of the active ingredients reaches the intended targets. Selecting the appropriate application parameters and equipment can allow for improved efficacy. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of droplet size on efficacy of six commonly used herbicides. Atrazine (1.12 kg ai ha−1), cloransulam-methyl (0.18 g ai ha−1), dicamba (0.14 kg ae ha−1), glufosinate (0.59 kg ai ha−1), saflufenacil (12.48 g ai ha−1), and 2,4-D (0.20 kg ae ha−1) were applied to seven plant species using an XR11003 nozzle at 138, 276, and 414 kPa and a AI11003 nozzle at 207, 345, and 483 kPa. Each herbicide, nozzle, and pressure combination was evaluated for droplet size spectra. Treatments were applied at 131 L ha−1 to common lambsquarters, common sunflower, shattercane, soybean, tomato, velvetleaf, and volunteer corn. Control from 2,4-D was observed to increase approximately 12% on average for all species except common lambsquarters as droplet size increased from medium to very coarse (Dv0.5 303 to 462 μm; Dv0.5 is droplet size such that 50% of spray volume is contained in droplets of equal or smaller size). Control with atrazine was near 95% for common lambsquarters, common sunflower, and soybean. Atrazine provided the greatest shattercane control using a medium (Dv0.5 325 μm) droplet, whereas the same droplet size provided the lowest tomato control. Control of common lambsquarters, shattercane, and tomato with cloransulam-methyl increased 79% when decreasing droplet size from extremely coarse to fine (Dv0.5 637 to 228 μm). Dicamba control of common lambsquarters increased 17% using a medium droplet compared with a fine droplet (Dv0.5 279 to 204 μm). Dry weight of common sunflower and soybean was reduced 21% using dicamba when using a very coarse spray compared with a fine spray classification (Dv0.5 491 to 204 μm). Common lambsquarters control using glufosinate increased 18% using a fine spray classification (Dv0.5 186 μm) compared with medium (Dv0.5 250 μm) and both very coarse droplet sizes (Dv0.5 470 and 516 μm). Conversely, tomato and velvetleaf control with glufosinate was maximized using a very coarse (Dv0.5 470 and 516 μm) or extremely coarse droplet (Dv0.5 628 μm) with increases of 11 and 25% compared with a fine spray (Dv0.5 186 μm). Saflufenacil control of volunteer corn was 38% greater using extremely coarse droplets (Dv0.5 622 μm) than fine, medium, and very coarse spray classifications (Dv0.5 257 to 514 μm). Overall, spray classifications for the herbicides evaluated play an important role in herbicide efficacy and should be tailored to the herbicide being used and the targeted weed species.