Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T04:34:30.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Surfactants and Ammonium Sulfate on Glyphosate Phytotoxicity to Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Hans De Ruiter ,
Andre J. M. Uffing  and
Esther Meinen
Hans De Ruiter
Affiliation:
DLO Res. Inst. for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO), P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Andre J. M. Uffing
Affiliation:
DLO Res. Inst. for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO), P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Esther Meinen
Affiliation:
DLO Res. Inst. for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO), P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of two cationic alkylamine surfactants, three nonionic surfactants, and ammonium sulfate on the performance of glyphosate (isopropylamine salt) against quackgrass. In the field experiments, the reinfestation of quackgrass in the year after treatment was zero or negligible in all plots that received the recommended rate of glyphosate (1.44 kg ae/ha). At one-fourth of the recommended rate (0.36 kg ae/ha) the glyphosate-adjuvant combinations also severely inhibited the reinfestation of quackgrass. At the low herbicide rate and without ammonium sulfate, lipophilic surfactants were less effective than more hydrophilic surfactants. In the greenhouse experiments, the glyphosate doses giving 50% response (ED50) were determined. Ranking of the surfactants according to the ED50 for glyphosate demonstrated a similar result to that observed in the field experiment. Ammonium sulfate added to the glyphosate-surfactant combinations reduced the ED50 for glyphosate 5-fold. The field and greenhouse experiments demonstrated that two hydrophilic nonionic surfactants enhance glyphosate efficacy against quackgrass to the same extent as the hydrophilic cationic tallowamine surfactant. These two nonionic surfactants have a relatively low toxicity to non-target organisms and may substitute the more toxic alkylamine surfactants.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinequackgrass, Elytrigia repens L. (Nevski) # AGRREAdjuvantsreinfestation quackgrassAGRRE
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 803 - 808
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Atkinson, D. 1985. Toxicological properties of glyphosate—a summary, p. 127–133 in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworth & Co. Ltd, London.Google Scholar
2. Clemence, T. G. A. and Merrit, C. R. 1993. New glyphosate formulations set new standards of operator and environmental safety. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds, p. 1337–1340.Google Scholar
3. de Ruiter, H., Uffing, A.J.M., Meinen, E., and Prins, A. 1990. Influence of surfactants and plant species on leaf retention of spray solutions. Weed Sci. 38:567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. de Ruiter, H., Meinen, E., and Verbeek, M.A.M. 1992. Influence of the type and concentration of surfactant on glyphosate absorption; relevance of drop spreading and drying time. p. 109–116 in Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
5. de Ruiter, H., Verbeek, M.A.M., and Uffing, A.J.M. 1988. Mode of action of anonionic and a cationic surfactant in relation to glyphosate. p. 44–55 in Cross, B. and Scher, H. B., eds. Pesticide Formulations. ACS Symp. Ser. 371. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. de Ruiter, H., Verbeek, M.A.M., and Uffing, A.J.M. 1994. Influence of ammonium sulfate and two surfactants on the phytotoxicity and uptake of glyphosate. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent 59/3B:1403–1408.Google Scholar
7. Gaskin, R. E. and Holloway, P. J. 1992. Some physicochemical factors influencing foliar uptake enhancement of glyphosate-(mono)isopropylammonium) by polyoxyethylene surfactants. Pestic. Sci. 34:195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Grossbard, E. 1985. Effects of glyphosate on the microflora: with reference to the decomposition of treated vegetation and interaction with some plant pathogens. p. 159–185 in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworth & Co. Ltd, London.Google Scholar
9. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. p. 153–168 in The Worlds Worst Weeds. The Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
10. Laerke, P. E. and Streibig, J. C. 1995. Foliar absorption of some glyphosate formulations and their efficacy on plants. Pestic. Sci. 44:107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Macisaac, S., Paul, R. N., and Devine, M. D. 1991. A scanning electron microscope study of glyphosate deposits in relation to foliar uptake. Pestic. Sci. 31:53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Freeman, Th. P. 1992. Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40:576–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hamman, W. M. 1981. Influence of nonionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality and spray volume in the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Riechers, D. E., Wax, L. M., Liebl, R. A., and Bullock, D. G. 1995. Surfactant effects on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 9:281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986. Effects of adjuvants and environment during plant development on glyphosate absorption and translocation in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34:811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Sherrick, S. L., Holt, H. A., and Hess, F. D. 1986. Absorption and translocation of MON 0818 adjuvant in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci. 34:817–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Steiner, A. A. 1984. The universal nutrient solution. Proc. 6th Int. Congr. on Soilless Culture. p. 633–650.Google Scholar
19. Tooby, T. E. 1985. Fate and biological consequences of glyphosate in the aquatic environment. p. 206–217 in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworth & Co. Ltd, London.Google Scholar
20. Turner, D. J. 1985. Effects on glyphosate performance of formulation, additives and mixing with other herbicides. p. 221–240 in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. Butterworth & Co. Ltd, London.Google Scholar
21. Turner, D. J. and Loader, M.C.P. 1980. Effect of ammonium sulfate and other additives upon the phytotoxicicty of glyphosate to Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 20:139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Van Toor, R. F., Hayes, A. L., Cooke, B. K., and Holloway, P. 1994. Relationships between the herbicidal activity and foliar uptake of surfactant-containing solutions of glyphosate applied to foliage of oats and field beans. Crop Prot. 13:260–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Wyrill, J. B. and Burnside, O. C. 1977. Glyphosate toxicity to common milkweed and hemp dogbane as influenced by surfactants. Weed Sci. 25:275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar