Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:46:55.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Measurements of Drift of Conventional and Drift Control Formulations of 2,4-D Plus Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2018

Patrick L. Havens ,
David E. Hillger ,
Andrew J. Hewitt ,
Greg R. Kruger ,
Lia Marchi-Werle  and
Zbigniew Czaczyk
Patrick L. Havens*
Affiliation:
Fellow, Crop Protection Regulatory Sciences, Corteva Agriscience, Agricultural Division of DowDuPont, Indianapolis, IN, USA
David E. Hillger
Affiliation:
Enlist Field Specialist, Corteva Agriscience, Agricultural Division of DowDuPont, Indianapolis, IN, USA
Andrew J. Hewitt
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow, University of Queensland, Gatton, Australia
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, NE, USA
Lia Marchi-Werle
Affiliation:
Research Associate, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, NE, USA
Zbigniew Czaczyk
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland
*
*Author for correspondence: Patrick L. Havens, Crop Protection Regulatory Sciences, Corteva Agriscience, Agricultural Division of DowDuPont, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent advances in biotechnology have resulted in crops that are tolerant to the synthetic auxin 2,4-D, expanding the weed management versatility of this herbicide. With potential expansions of use, concerns have been raised about the increased risk of herbicide drift, leading to damage to nontarget crops. A field-scale study was conducted with the objective to measure drift deposition and the potential for drift reduction conferred by a proprietary pre-mixture formulation of 2,4-D choline salt plus glyphosate dimethylammonium salt compared to an in-tank mixture of 2,4-D dimethylamine salt plus glyphosate potassium salt. Treatments were made with field-scale spray equipment under typical application conditions in McCook, NE, using three widely used nozzle tips. Deposition was captured in triplicate downwind collector lines and assayed for tracer dye and 2,4-D. In comparison to the in-tank mixture, the pre-mixture formulation exhibited lower downwind depositions when applied through a flat-fan (TeeJet Extended Range; XR) and air induction (TeeJet Air Induction Extended Range; AIXR) nozzles, but not with a pre-orifice (TeeJet TurboTeeJet Induction; TTI) nozzle. Based upon median deposition at 30 m downwind, the pre-mixture formulation reduced drift by 62% and 91%, for the XR and AIXR nozzles, respectively. From a drift reduction perspective, the pre-mixture formulation performance with the AIXR nozzle was equivalent to a much coarser TTI nozzle while still offering sufficient foliar coverage for acceptable weed control.

Keywords

Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri2,4-DglyphosateHerbicide driftdrift reduction technology
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 550 - 556
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

APVMA (2008) APVMA Operating Principles in Relation to Spray Drift Risk. Kingston, ACT,. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. https://apvma.gov.au/node/27921. Accessed: April 9, 2018Google Scholar
ASABE (2004) Procedure for Measuring Drift Deposits from Ground, Orchard, and Aerial Sprayers, Standard S561.1. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 6 pGoogle Scholar
ASTM (2012) ASTM Standard E2798-11: Standard Test Method for Characterization of Performance of Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction Adjuvants for Ground Application. ASTM International, West Conshocken, PA. 6 pGoogle Scholar
Butler Ellis, MC, Miller, PCH (2010) The Silsoe Spray Drift Model: a model of spray drift for the assessment of non-target exposures to pesticides. Biosystems Engineering 107:169–177 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.09.003 Google Scholar
CRD (2001) Local Environmental Risk Assessment for Pesticides (LERAPs). UK Health and Safety Executive, Chemical Regulation Directorate. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/using-pesticides/spray-drift/leraps/local-environment-risk-assessment-for-pesticides-le.htm. Accessed: April 1, 2018Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 Google Scholar
EPA (2013) U.S. EPA Generic Verification Protocol for the Testing Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops, Draft September 2013. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency Google Scholar
Felsot, AS, Unsworth, JB, Linders, JB, Roberts, G, Rautman, D, Harris, C, Carazo, E (2010) Agrochemical spray drift; assessment and mitigation—a review. J Environ Sci Health Part B 46:1–23 Google Scholar
Hewitt, AJ (2000) Spray drift: impact of requirements to protect the environment. Crop Prot 19:623–627 Google Scholar
Hillger, D, Qin, K, Simpson, D, Havens, P (2012) Reduction in drift and volatility of EnlistTM Duo with Colex-D. Page 38 in Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the North Central Weed Science Society Conference, 2012. Westminster, CO: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Holterman, HJ, Van de Zande, JC, Porskamp, HAJ, Huijsmans, JFM (1997) Modelling spray drift from boom sprayers. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 19:1–22 Google Scholar
ISO (2006) Standard 22866: Equipment for Crop Protection, Methods for Field Measurement of Spray Drift. Geneva: International Standards Organization. 17 pGoogle Scholar
Julius Kühn-Institut (2013) Loss Reducing Plant Protection Equipment. Julius Kühn-Institut. https://www.julius-kuehn.de/at/richtlinien-listen-pruefberichte-und-antraege/. Accessed: August 13, 2018Google Scholar
Koenker, R, Hallock, K (2001) Quantile regression: an introduction. J Econ Persp 15:43–56 Google Scholar
OECD (2009) Report of the Seminar on Pesticide Risk Reduction Through Spray Drift Reduction Strategies as Part of National Risk Management. OECD Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals, Paris, France. 68 pGoogle Scholar
Peterson, GE (1967) The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agricultural History 41:243–254 Google Scholar
Peterson, MA, McMaster, SA, Riechers, DE, Skelton, J, Stahlman, PW (2016) 2,4-D past, present, and future: a review. Weed Technol 30:303–345 Google Scholar
PMRA (2005) Agricultural Buffer Zone Strategy Proposal, Regulatory Proposal PRO2005-06 vol PRO2005-06. Ottawa, Canada: PMRA Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2013. http://www.r-project.org Google Scholar
Ruen, DC, Hillger, DE, Love, CC, Olson, BD, Ellis, AT (2012) Effect of Nozzle Type, Spray Droplet Size and Spray Volume on Crop Tolerance and Weed Control with 2,4-D+Glyphosate Formulation. Poster presented at the Weed Science Society of America, 2012 Annual Meeting, Waikoloa, HI. http://wssaabstracts.com/public/9/proceedings.html Google Scholar
Shao, H, Li, M, Tank, H, Qin, K, Wilson, S, Liu, L (2013) Spray Drift Reduction through Formulation Innovation. Pages 263–268 in Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, April 22–25, 2013Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Braxton, LB, Richburg, JS (2015) Evaluating the volatility of three formulations of 2,4-D when applied in the field. Weed Technol 29:177–184 Google Scholar
Teske, ME, Bird, SL, Esterly, DM, Ray, SL, Perry, SG (1997) A user’s guide for AgDRIFT 1.0: a tiered approach for the assessment of spray drift of pesticides Technical Note 95-10, Continuum Dynamics, Inc., Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
Teske, ME, Miller, PCH, Thistle, HW, Birchfield, NB (2009) Initial Development and Validation of a Mechanistic Spray Drift Model for Ground Boom Sprayers. Transactions of the ASABE 52:1089–1097, doi: 10.13031/2013.27779 Google Scholar
USDA ERS (2017) Recent Trends in GE Adoption. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx. Accessed: April 1, 2018Google Scholar
Van de Zande, J, Porskamp, H, Michielsen, J, Holterman, H, Huijsmans, J (2000) Classification of spray applications for driftability, to protect surface water. Aspects Appl Biol 57:57–66 Google Scholar
Wolf, RE (2000) Strategies to reduce spray drift. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, KS Google Scholar
Wolf, TM, Caldwell, BC (2001) Development of a Canadian spray drift model for the determination of buffer zone distances. Page 60 in Expert Committee on Weeds-Comité d’Experts en Malherbologie, Proceedings of the 2001 National Meeting, Québec City. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Wright, TR et al. (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:20240–20245 Google Scholar