Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:40:53.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Variations in Drop Makeup on the Phytotoxicity of Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rolfe M. Ambach  and
Ross Ashford
Rolfe M. Ambach
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N OWO
Ross Ashford
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N OWO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse trials have shown that ultra-low-volume applications (ULV) of glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] exhibit a greater phytotoxic effect on barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Bonanza′) at a given rate than do high-diluent-volume applications with a conventional hydraulic sprayer. Three greenhouse studies and one field trial were conducted to evaluate the influence of individual drop makeup on the effectiveness of ULV applications. Barley plants were treated at the four-leaf stage with one, three, or nine drops (1 μl each) of glyphosate and a non-ionic surfactant with the concentration of the drops adjusted so that the total amount of active ingredient applied to each plant was constant. Application of a single, concentrated drop was significantly more effective in reducing total shoot growth than were applications of more dilute drops in greater number. When the dilute drop was supplemented with additional surfactant, phytotoxicity was restored, provided there was a sufficiently high concentration of glyphosate in the drop. With the substitution of a commercial formulation of glyphosate, the response of barley to variations in drop number and drop concentrations followed a similar trend. The response of field-grown plants did not differ from plants grown under controlled conditions.

Keywords

Ultra low volumecontrolled-drop applicationsurfactant
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 1982 , pp. 221 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Bals, E. S. 1975. The development of a CDA herbicide hand sprayer. PANS 21:345–349.Google Scholar
2. Caseley, J. C., Coupland, D., and Simmins, R. C. 1976. Effect of formulation, volume rate and application method on performance and rainfastness of glyphosate on Agropyron repens . Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.-Weeds. 2:407–412.Google Scholar
3. Coffee, R. A. 1980. Electrodynamic energy – a new approach to pesticide application. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Pests and Diseases. 3:777–789.Google Scholar
4. Schultz, M. E. and Burnside, O. C. 1980. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum . Weed Sci. 28:13–20.Google Scholar
5. Stahlman, P. W. and Phillips, W. M. 1979. Effect of water quality and spray volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 27:38–41.Google Scholar
6. Zandstra, B. H. and Nishimoto, R. K. 1977. Movement and activity of glyphosate in purple nutsedge. Weed Sci. 25:268–274.Google Scholar