Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:55:30.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application Time of Day Influences Glyphosate Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Keith Mohr ,
Brent A. Sellers  and
Reid J. Smeda
Keith Mohr
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Brent A. Sellers
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Variability in glyphosate efficacy has been observed following late day field applications, but the influence of this “time-of-day effect” on weed control and soybean yield is unknown. Additionally, the basis for differences in weed control due to application time of day has not been fully elucidated. In field trials, broadleaf weed biomass was ≥5-fold greater when glyphosate was applied at 6:00 A.M. compared to 6:00 P.M. in three of four site–years. No consistent time-of-day effect was observed on treated grass weeds. Soybean yield was unaffected by treatments, and was similar to the weed-free control. In a greenhouse study, both barnyardgrass and velvetleaf biomass were as much as 25 to 80% greater when glyphosate was applied at 8:00 P.M. vs. 2:00 P.M. Examination of individual components of the time-of-day effect for velvetleaf indicated that leaf angle and time of application accounted for 82 and 18%, respectively, of the biomass change. This research suggests that diurnal changes in leaf movement of velvetleaf account for much of the time-of-day effect, with the remainder likely due to an unknown physiological component.

Keywords

Glyphosatebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., ‘Asgrow 3601 RR∗STS’ or ‘Asgrow 3701 RR’Circadian rhythmsdiurnal leaf movementlight
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 7 - 13
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

Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous, , 2004. Liberty specimen label. Kansas City, MO Bayer CropScience.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005a. Missouri Farm Facts. Jefferson City, MO Missouri Agriculture Statistics Service.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005b. Roundup WeatherMax specimen label. St. Louis, MO Monsanto Company.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T. 1999. Weed Control with Glufosinate and Influence of Light on Glufosinate Activity. M.S. Thesis. Columbia, MO University of Missouri. 26–82.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C., Coupland, D., and Hough, M. 1983. Day compared with night application of glyphosate for Elymus repens control in cereals. in. Aspects of Applied Biology 4: Influence of Environmental Factors on Herbicide Performance and Crop and Weed Biology. Wellesbourne, Warwick, UK Association of Applied Biologists. 301–307.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.Google Scholar
Doran, D. L. and Andersen, R. N. 1976. Effectiveness of bentazon applied at various times of the day. Weed Sci. 24:567–570.Google Scholar
Klassen, N. D., Wilson, R. J., and Wilson, J. N. 1993. Agricultural vehicle guidance sensor. American Society of Agricultural Engineering paper no.93–1008. St. Joseph, MI American Society of Agricultural Engineers.Google Scholar
Kraatz, G. W. and Andersen, R. N. 1980. Leaf movements in sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in relation to herbicide response. Weed Sci. 28:551–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinson, K. B., Sothern, R. B., Koukkari, W. L., Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. 2002. Circadian response of annual weeds to glyphosate and glufosinate. Chronobiol. Int. 19:405–422.Google Scholar
Miller, R. P., Durgan, B. R., and Miller, D. 2000. Effect of time of day of application upon efficacy of chlorimuron-ethyl and fomesafen. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:60.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliver, L. R., and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Diurnal leaf movement effects on spray interception and glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 13:466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R. G. 1994. Agricultural Field Experiments: Design and Analysis. New York Marcel Dekker. 205–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. E. and Al-Khatib, K. 1999. The influence of application time of day on glyphosate efficacy. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:17–18.Google Scholar
Satchivi, N. M., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Briskin, D. P. 2000. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate isopropylamine and trimethylsulfonium salts in Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi . Weed Sci. 48:675–679.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2003a. Diurnal fluctuations and leaf angle reduce glufosinate efficacy. Weed Technol. 17:302–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2003b. Atrazine may overcome the time-of-day effect on Liberty efficacy. Crop Management DOI: 10.1094/CM-2003-1111-01-RS. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/cm/.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., and Li, J. 2004. Glutamine synthetase activity and ammonium accumulation is influenced by time of glufosinate application. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 78:9–20.Google Scholar
Tillett, N. D. 1991. Automatic guidance sensors for agricultural field machines—a review. J. Agr. Eng. Res. 50:167–187.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 1999. Weed management with reduced rates of glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:478–483.Google Scholar
Waltz, A. L., Martin, A. R., Roeth, F. W., and Lindquist, J. L. 2000. Glyphosate efficacy with varying time of day applications. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:36–37.Google Scholar
Weaver, M. L. and Nylund, R. E. 1963. Factors influencing the tolerance of peas to MCPA. Weeds 11:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. L. and Kapusta, G. 1997. Control of tall weeds in soybean with glyphosate. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 54:204–205.Google Scholar