Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:49:45.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glyphosate Response to Calcium, Ethoxylated Amine Surfactant, and Ammonium Sulfate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christian Gauvrit*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Malherbologie et Agronomie, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR Biologie et Gestion des Adventices, BP 86510, F-21065 Dijon Cedex, France
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Calcium ion in the spray water can reduce glyphosate efficacy. Ammonium sulfate (AMS) is commonly added to the spray tank to overcome the reduced efficacy. However, it is sometimes claimed that ethoxylated tallow amine surfactant (EA) is also efficacious, provided that calcium concentration is moderate (= 5 mM, 200 ppm). On response curves of ‘Plaisant’ barley treated with glyphosate, the presence of calcium ion increased the glyphosate dose needed to obtain 50% (ED 50 ) barley growth reduction. The addition of AMS to the spray tank overcame the antagonistic effect of the calcium ion and restored glyphosate efficacy. EA was less effective than AMS at 5 or 10 mM calcium ion concentration as measured by ED 50 . However, at 90% growth reduction (ED 90 ), EA was more effective than AMS at the 5 mM calcium ion concentration but less effective at the 10 mM concentration. Hence, at a moderate (= 5 mM) calcium concentration, EA would be an effective adjuvant. Calcium ion decreased the foliar uptake of glyphosate but did not affect the rate of uptake. AMS but not EA restored foliar uptake to values observed without calcium ion. EA increased spray retention, and this probably accounted for the increased glyphosate efficacy at low calcium concentration.

Type
Research
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

Blondlot, A., Bouclet, G., and Boyer, P. et al. 1999. Dureté de l'eau et efficacité herbicide. Perspectives Agri 251: 6066.Google Scholar
Blondlot, A., Citron, G., Vacher, C., Jouy, L., Verdier, J-L., and Réal, B. 2000. Glyphosate. In Couvreur, F., ed. Herbicides. Paris, France: ITCF. pp. 236246.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R. 1964. An analysis of transformations. J. Roy. Stat. Soc 82: 211245.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, H., Downer, R. A., Uffing, A. J. M., Ebert, T. A., and Hall, F. R. 2002. The influence of inorganic cations on glyphosate activity. In Mueninghoff, J. C., Viets, A. K., and Downer, R. A., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: A New Century for Agricultural Formulations. Volume 21, ASTM STP 1414. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 2336.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. General properties of glyphosate and glyphosate salts. In Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A., eds. Glyphosate: A Unique and Global Herbicide. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 2764.Google Scholar
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: 195206.Google Scholar
Gauvrit, C., Gaudry, J-C., Lucotte, T., and Cabanne, F. 2000. Evidences for a 1:1 Ca2+:glyphosate association in deposit residuals on leaf surface. Proc. Meded. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 65: /2a. 7786.Google Scholar
Gauvrit, C., Gaudry, J-C., Lucotte, T., and Cabanne, F. 2001. Biological evidences for a 1:1-Ca2+:glyphosate association in deposit residuals on the leaf surface of barley. Weed Res. 41: 433445.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Streibig, J. C. 1993. Formulations and adjuvants. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicides Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. pp. 99116.Google Scholar
Leaper, C. 1996. Rational Approaches to the Design of Formulations of Glyphosate-Mono(isopropylammonium). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Pp. 6.256.27.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Devilliers, B., and Matysiak, R. 1996. Surfactant and salt affect glyphosate retention and absorption. Weed Res. 36: 241247.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 39: 622628.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1992. Species differ in response to adjuvants with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 6: 561566.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993a. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7: 337342.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993b. Influence of diammonium sulfate and other salts on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Pestic. Sci 38: 7784.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Freeman, T. P. 1992. Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40: 576589.Google Scholar
Nilsson, G. 1985. Interactions between glyphosate and metals essential for plant growth. In Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. London: Butterworths. pp. 3547.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26: 476479.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. and Tupy, D. R. 1984. Reversal of cation-induced reduction in glyphosate activity with EDTA. Weed Sci. 32: 802806.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Phillips, W. M. 1979. Effects of water quality and spray volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 27: 3841.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43: 541548.Google Scholar