Droplet Size Impact on Efficacy of a Dicamba-plus-Glyphosate Mixture

Chemical weed control remains a widely used component of integrated weed management strategies because of its cost-effectiveness and rapid removal of crop pests. Additionally, dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixtures are a commonly recommended herbicide combination to combat herbicide resistance, specifically in recently commercially released dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton. However, increased spray drift concerns and antagonistic interactions require that the application process be optimized to maximize biological efficacy while minimizing environmental contamination potential. Field research was conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018 across three locations (Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Dakota) for a total of six site-years. The objectives were to characterize the efficacy of a range of droplet sizes [150 μm (Fine) to 900 μm (Ultra Coarse)] using a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture and to create novel weed management recommendations utilizing pulse-width modulation (PWM) sprayer technology. Results across pooled site-years indicated that a droplet size of 395 μm (Coarse) maximized weed mortality from a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture at 94 L ha–1. However, droplet size could be increased to 620 μm (Extremely Coarse) to maintain 90% of the maximum weed mortality while further mitigating particle drift potential. Although generalized droplet size recommendations could be created across site-years, optimum droplet sizes within each site-year varied considerably and may be dependent on weed species, geographic location, weather conditions, and herbicide resistance(s) present in the field. The precise, site-specific application of a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture using the results of this research will allow applicators to more effectively utilize PWM sprayers, reduce particle drift potential, maintain biological efficacy, and reduce the selection pressure for the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds

Effects of Nitrogen and Planting Seed Size on Cotton Growth, Development, and Yield

A standardized experiment was conducted during 2009 and 2010 at 20 location-years across U.S. cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)-producing states to compare the N use requirement of contemporary cotton cultivars based on their planting seed size. Treatments consisted of three cotton varieties with planting seed of different numbers of seed per kg and N rates of 0, 45, 90, and 134 kg ha⁻¹. Soil at each trial location was sampled and tested for nitrate presence. High levels of soil nitrate (>91 N-NO₃⁻kg ha⁻¹) were found in Arizona and western Texas, and soil nitrate in the range of 45 to 73 kg N-NO₃⁻ ha⁻¹ was found at locations in the central United States. Cotton lint yield responded to applied N at 11 of 20 locations. Considering only sites that responded to applied N, highest lint yields were achieved with 112 to 224 kg ha⁻¹of applied plus pre-plant residual soil NO₃—translating to an optimal N requirement of 23 kg ha⁻¹ per 218 kg bale of lint produced. Among the varieties tested those with medium-sized seed produced higher yields in response to N than did larger and smaller seeded varieties. Varieties with larger seed had longer and stronger fibers, higher fiber length uniformity than small seeded varieties and decreased micronaire. Seed protein and oil increased and decreased slightly in response to increasing amounts of soil nitrate plus applied N, respectively

Managing Wicked Herbicide-Resistance: Lessons from the Field

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

Managing Wicked Herbicide-Resistance: Lessons from the Field

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

Managing Herbicide Resistance: Listening to the Perspectives of Practitioners. Procedures for Conducting Listening Sessions and an Evaluation of the Process

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

Evaluation of Tillage, At-Planting Treatment, and Nematicide on Tobacco Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and Reniform Nematode (Tylenchida: Hoplolamidae) Management in Cotton

There are numerous early-season pests of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., that are economically important, including tobacco thrips, Frankliniella fusca (Hinds), and reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis (Linford & Oliveira). Both of these species have the potential to reduce plant growth and delay crop maturity, ultimately resulting in reduced yields. A field study was conducted during 2015 and 2016 to evaluate the influence of tillage, at-planting insecticide treatment, and nematicide treatment on pest management, cotton development, and yield. Treatment factors consisted of two levels of tillage (no-tillage and conventional tillage); seven levels of at-planting insecticide treatments (imidacloprid, imidacloprid plus thiodicarb, thiamethoxam, thiamethoxam plus abamectin, acephate plus terbufos, aldicarb, and an untreated control); and two levels of nematicide (no nematicide and 1,3-dichloropropene). There were no significant interactions between tillage, at-planting insecticide treatment, or nematicide for any parameters nor was there a difference in the main effect of nematicide on thrips control or damage. The main effects of tillage and at-planting insecticide treatment impacted thrips densities and damage. The no-tillage treatments and aldicarb in-furrow or acephate seed treatment plus terbufos in-furrow significantly reduced thrips populations. Early-season plant response was impacted by tillage and at-planting insecticide treatment; however, that did not result in significant yield differences. In regard to nematicide treatment, the use of 1,3-dichloropropene resulted in lower yields than the untreated

Optimum Droplet Size Using a Pulse-Width Modulation Sprayer for Applications of 2,4-D Choline Plus Glyphosate

The delivery of an optimum herbicide droplet size using pulse-width modulation (PWM) sprayers can reduce potential environmental contamination, maintain efficacy, and provide more flexible options for pesticide applicators. Field research was conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018 across three locations (Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Dakota) for a total of 6 site-years. The objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of a range of droplet sizes (150 μm [Fine] to 900 μm [Ultra Coarse]) using a 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate pre-mixture and to create novel weed management recommendations using PWM sprayer technology. A pooled site-year generalized additive model explained less than 5% of the model deviance, so a site-specific analysis was conducted. Across the Mississippi and North Dakota sites, a 900-μm (Ultra Coarse) droplet size maintained 90% of the maximum weed control. In contrast, at the Nebraska sites, droplet sizes between 565 and 690 μm (Extremely Coarse) were almost exclusively required to maintain 90% of the maximum weed control, likely due to weed leaf architecture. Severe reductions in weed control were observed as droplet size increased at several site-years. Alternative drift reduction practices must be identified; otherwise, weed control reductions will be observed. This research illustrated that PWM sprayers paired with appropriate nozzle–pressure combinations for 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate pre-mixture could be effectively implemented into precision agricultural practices by generating optimum herbicide droplet sizes for site-specific management plans. To fully optimize spray applications using PWM technology, future research must holistically investigate the influence of application parameters and conditions

Droplet Size Impact on Efficacy of a Dicamba-plus-Glyphosate Mixture

Chemical weed control remains a widely used component of integrated weed management strategies because of its cost-effectiveness and rapid removal of crop pests. Additionally, dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixtures are a commonly recommended herbicide combination to combat herbicide resistance, specifically in recently commercially released dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton. However, increased spray drift concerns and antagonistic interactions require that the application process be optimized to maximize biological efficacy while minimizing environmental contamination potential. Field research was conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018 across three locations (Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Dakota) for a total of six site-years. The objectives were to characterize the efficacy of a range of droplet sizes [150 μm (Fine) to 900 μm (Ultra Coarse)] using a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture and to create novel weed management recommendations utilizing pulse-width modulation (PWM) sprayer technology. Results across pooled site-years indicated that a droplet size of 395 μm (Coarse) maximized weed mortality from a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture at 94 L ha–1. However, droplet size could be increased to 620 μm (Extremely Coarse) to maintain 90% of the maximum weed mortality while further mitigating particle drift potential. Although generalized droplet size recommendations could be created across site-years, optimum droplet sizes within each site-year varied considerably and may be dependent on weed species, geographic location, weather conditions, and herbicide resistance(s) present in the field. The precise, site-specific application of a dicamba-plus-glyphosate mixture using the results of this research will allow applicators to more effectively utilize PWM sprayers, reduce particle drift potential, maintain biological efficacy, and reduce the selection pressure for the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds

Effect of Deposition Aids Tank-Mixed with Herbicides on Cotton and Soybean Canopy Deposition and Spray Droplet Parameters

The adoption of auxin-tolerant crops has increased awareness regarding herbicide off-target movement. Deposition aids are promoted as a possible solution to off-target movement, although their effect on spray canopy deposition are not well understood. Studies were conducted to determine the impact of deposition aids tank-mixed with herbicides on spray droplet size and canopy deposition. Commonly used herbicides were applied on soybean and cotton in combination with deposition aids (oil, polymer, and guargum). Interactions between herbicide solution and deposition aid influenced droplet size parameters for both cotton and soybean herbicides tested herein (p ≤ 0.0001). Generally, the addition of polymer and guargum deposition aids increased spray droplet size, whereas the addition of oil deposition aid decreased droplet size for some treatments. When herbicides were combined, the inclusion of deposition aids did not influence overall spray deposition on cotton (p = 0.82) and soybean (p = 0.72). When herbicide solutions were evaluated individually, the advent of deposition aids had inconsistent results with cotton and soybean spray deposition being unaffected, increased, or even decreased depending on the herbicide solution tested. For example, the polymer-based deposition aid increased spray deposition on cotton for applications of glyphosate + dicamba + S-metolachlor resulting in 1640.6 RFU (relative fluorescence units). However, the same deposition aid decreased spray deposition on cotton for applications of glyphosate + dicamba + acetochlor (1179.3 RFU). Although deposition aids influenced spray deposition on cotton and soybean for some herbicide combinations, their use should be determined on a case-by-case scenario

Dicamba off‐target movement from applications on soybeans at two growth stages

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate dicamba off‐target movement during and after applications over soybean at two growth stages. Dicamba‐tolerant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] at V3 and R1 growth stages in Nebraska and Mississippi fields were treated with diglycolamine salt of dicamba (560 g ae ha−1), potassium salt of glyphosate (1260 g ae ha−1), and a drift‐reducing adjuvant (0.5% v v−1). Filter papers positioned outside the sprayed area were used to determine primary movement and air samplers positioned at the center of sprayed area were used to calculate dicamba flux from 0.5 up to 68 hours after application (HAA). Flux was calculated using the aerodynamic method. Soybean growth stage did not affect dicamba deposition on filter papers from 8 to 45 m downwind from the sprayed areas. At 33 m downwind (i.e., distance of the labeled buffer zone), a spray drift of less than 0.0091% (0.05 g ae ha−1) of applied rate is estimated. Dicamba secondary movement may not be affected by soybean growth stage during the application. Although dicamba was detected in air samples collected at 68 HAA, the majority of the secondary movement was observed in the first 24 HAA. Dicamba cumulative loss was lower than 0.77% of applied rate. Results suggest the more stable the atmospheric conditions, the higher the dicamba flux. Thus, meteorological conditions after applications must be considered, and tools to predict the occurrence of temperature inversion are needed to minimize secondary movement of dicamba