Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:23:56.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of dry edible bean to dicamba and 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2019

Scott R. Bales  and
Christy L. Sprague Open the ORCID record for Christy L. Sprague [Opens in a new window]
Scott R. Bales
Affiliation:
Graduate Student
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Christy Sprague, Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, 1066 Bogue Street, East Lansing, MI 48824. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dicamba and 2,4-D exposure to sensitive crops, such as dry bean, is of great concern with the recent registrations of dicamba- and 2,4-D–resistant soybean. In 2017 and 2018, field experiments were conducted at two Michigan locations to understand how multiple factors, including dry bean market class, herbicide rate, and application timing, influence dry bean response to dicamba and 2,4-D. Dicamba and 2,4-D at rates of 0.1%, 1%, and 10% of the field use rate for dicamba and 2,4-D choline were applied to V2 and V8 black and navy bean. Field-use rates for dicamba and 2,4-D choline were 560 and 1,120 g ae ha−1, respectively. There were few differences between market classes or application timings when dry bean was exposed to dicamba or 2,4-D. Estimated rates to cause 20% dry bean injury 14 d after treatment were 4.5 and 107.5 g ae ha−1 for dicamba and 2,4-D, respectively. When dicamba was applied at 56 g ae ha−1, light interception was reduced up to 51% and maturity was delayed up to 16 d. Although both herbicides caused high levels of injury to dry bean, yield reductions were not consistently observed. At four site-years, 2,4-D did not reduce dry bean yield or seed weight with any rate tested. However, when averaged over site-years, dicamba rates of 3.7, 9.8 and 17.9 g ae ha−1 were estimated to cause 5%, 10%, and 15% yield loss, respectively. Dicamba also reduced seed weight by 10% when 56 g ae ha−1 was applied. However, the germination of harvested seed was not affected by dicamba or 2,4-D. Long delays in dry bean maturity from dicamba injury can also indirectly increase losses in yield and quality due to harvestability issues. This work further stresses the need for caution when using dicamba or 2,4-D herbicides near sensitive crops.

Keywords

2,4-D cholinedicambadry beanPhaseolus vulgaris LBlack beannavy beanoff-target movementspray tank contamination
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 117 - 124
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Mark VanGessel, University of Delaware

References

Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JPA, Vieira, BC, Henry, RS, Obradovic, A, Grujic, M (2017) Spray drift from dicamba and glyphosate applications in a wind tunnel. Weed Technol 31:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auch, D, Arnold, W (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, W Z, LaVallee, BJ, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behrens, R, Lueschen, W (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Molnar, LJ, Muendel, HH, Saindon, G, Li, X (2000) Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 14:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. In Wisconsin Crop Management Conference: 2004 Proceedings Papers. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-MadisonGoogle Scholar
Burgoyne, TW, Hites, RA (1993) Effect of temperature and wind direction on the atmospheric concentrations of alpha-endosulfan. Environ Sci Technol 27:910–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of herbicide programs on weed management in soybean with resistance to glufosinate and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, GT, Reynolds, DB, Mueller, TC (2017) Evaluation of dicamba persistence among various agricultural hose types and cleanout procedures using soybean (Glycine max) as a bio-indicator. Weed Sci 65:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG (1993) Herbicide spray drift. North Dakota State University Extension Bulletin A-657. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Fageria, NK, Santos, AB (2008) Yield physiology of dry bean. J Plant Nutr 31:983–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K (2003) Mediation of herbicide effects by hormone interactions. J Plant Growth Regul 22:209–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H, Endres, G, Jenks, B, Ostlie, M, Reinhardt, T, Robinson, A, Stenger, J, Zollinger, R (2017) Defining glyphosate and dicamba drift injury to dry edible pea, dry edible bean, and potato. HortTechnol 27:502–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillger, DE, Qin, K, Simpson, D, Havens, P (2012) Reduction in drift and volatility of EnlistTM Duo with Colex-D. Page 31 in Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
Holmes, RC, Sprague, CL (2013) Row width affects weed management in type II black bean. Weed Technol 27:538–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, JD, Cichy, KA (2013) Dry bean breeding and production technologies. Pages 23–54 in Siddiq, M, Uebersax, M, eds. Dry Beans and Pulses Production, Processing and Nutrition. Ames, IA: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Streibig, JC, Ritz, C (2007) Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol 21:840–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR (2018) Soybean response to dicamba: a meta-analysis. Weed Technol 32:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2010) Control of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with growth regulator herbicides. Weed Technol 24:425–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, DJ, Wilson, RG (1986) Sensitivity of fieldbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to reduced rates of 2, 4-D and dicamba. Weed Sci 34:953–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory-Smith, CA, Retzinger, JE (2003) Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol 17:605–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. J Air Pollution Control Assoc 28:1009–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordby, A, Skuterud, R (1974). The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res 14:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, PP, Xu, Z, Swanson, KD, Walker, T, Farmer, DK (2015) Dicamba and 2, 4-D residues following applicator cleanout: a potential point source to the environment and worker exposure. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 65:1153–1158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, MA, McMaster, SA, Riechers, DE, Skelton, J (2016) 2,4-D Past, present and future: a review. Weed Technol 30:303–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 207–335Google Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Siefert-Higgins, S, Bradley, KW (2014) Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) management in dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 28:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterling, TM, Hall, JC (1997) Mechanism of action of natural auxins and the auxinic herbicides. Pages 111–141 in: Roe, RM, et al., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS PressGoogle Scholar
Thistle, HW (2004) Meteorological concepts in the drift of pesticides. Pages 156–162 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application. October 27–29, Waikola, HIGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] US Department of Agriculture (2018) Quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/BD70E5AE-8384-3B19-9B5F-01A972736DFC. Accessed: August 18, 2018Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2, 4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K (1993) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can J Plant Sci 73:1261–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russel, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(47):20240–20245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed