Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:40:14.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of hard water on 2,4-D formulations for the control of dandelion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2020

Geoffrey P. Schortgen  and
Aaron J. Patton Open the ORCID record for Aaron J. Patton [Opens in a new window]
Geoffrey P. Schortgen
Affiliation:
Extension Educator, Agriculture & Natural Resources, Wabash County Extension, Purdue University, Wabash, IN, USA
Aaron J. Patton*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: A.J. Patton, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, 625 Agriculture Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN47907 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The herbicide 2,4-D is used in a variety of cropping systems, especially in grasses because it is a selective postemergence broadleaf herbicide. However, the most common formulation (2,4-D dimethylamine) is antagonized when mixed in hard water. The objective of this research was to determine which formulations of 2,4-D or premixes of various formulations of synthetic auxin herbicides are subject to hard water antagonism. Formulations surveyed for hard water antagonism in the first experiment included 2,4-D dimethylamine, 2,4-D diethanolamine, 2,4-D monomethylamine, 2,4-D isopropylamine salt, 2,4-D choline salt, 2,4-D isooctyl ester, and 2,4-D ethylhexyl ester. Synthetic auxin formulation types in the second experiment included water-soluble, emulsifiable concentrates and emulsion-in-water. All formulations were mixed with both soft and hard water (600 mg CaCO3 L−1) and applied to dandelions to determine whether antagonism occurred in hard water. Water-soluble (amine and choline) 2,4-D formulations were antagonized by hard water, but water-insoluble (ester) 2,4-D formulations were not antagonized. Similar results were found by formulation type with water-soluble synthetic auxin premixes antagonized but emulsifiable concentrates not antagonized. Furthermore, water-soluble salt formulations were not antagonized when formulated in premixes with other synthetic auxin herbicides as an emulsion-in-water. This research demonstrates that all 2,4-D water-soluble formulations and water-soluble premixes with phenoxycarboxylic acid herbicides are subject to hard water antagonism. Formulations of 2,4-D containing emulsifying agents protect against antagonism by the water-insoluble nature of ingredients in their formulation.

Keywords

2,4-DdandelionTaraxacum officinale G.H. Weber ex WiggersMCPPMCPAamineantagonismemulsifiable concentrateemulsionesterhard waterwater-solublewater-insoluble
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 371 - 379
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Patrick E. McCullough, University of Georgia

References

Anonymous (2003) Cool Power® herbicide product label. Burr Ridge, IL: Nufarm Americas Inc. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2007) 2,4-D. Pages 332–328 in Senseman SA, ed. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2009) SpeedZone® herbicide product label. Kansas City, MO: PBI/Gordon Corporation. 5 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Escalade® 2 herbicide product label. Burr Ridge, IL: Nufarm Americas Inc. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019) GameOn™ herbicide product label. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences LLC. 6 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2020) Escalade® 2 - US - Turf. https://nufarm.com/usturf/product/escalade2/. Accessed August 10, 2020Google Scholar
Bekbölet, M, Yenigün, O, Yücel, I (1999) Sorption studies of 2,4-D on selected soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 111:75–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, CE (2015) Water Quality: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Auburn, AL: Springer. 357 p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christians, NE, Patton, AJ, Law, QD (2017) Fundamentals of turfgrass management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Google Scholar
de Villiers, BL, Smit, HA, Lindeque, RC, Smit, JJ (2000) Optimizing MCPA (K-salt) activity with adjuvants. S Afr J Plant Soil 17:63–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devkota, P, Johnson, WG (2016) Effect of carrier water hardness and ammonium sulfate on efficacy of 2,4-D choline and premixed 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate. Weed Technol 30:878–887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eytcheson, AN, Reynolds, D, Irby, J, Steckel, L, Walton, L, Haygood, R, Ellis, D, Richburg, J (2012) Volatility of 1713 GF-2726 as compared with other auxin herbicides. Beltwide Cotton Conference. Orlando, FL, January 3–6, 2012Google Scholar
Grover, R, Maybank, J, Yoshida, K (1972) Droplet and vapor drift from butyl ester and dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D. Weed Sci 20:320–324 10.1017/S004317450003575XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hem, JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. 3rd ed. Water-Supply Paper 2254. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution and Prevention. Pp 63–64Google Scholar
Jervais, JA, Luukinen, B, Nuhl, K, Stone, D (2008) 2,4-D Technical fact sheet. Corvallis, OR: National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University extension services. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/2,4-DTech.html Accessed: December 23, 2020Google Scholar
Kelly, JA (1953) Present methods of formulation. J Agric Food Chem 1:254–257 10.1021/jf60003a009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, M, inventor; Dow Agrosciences, assignee (2015) Aqueous herbicidal concentrates. U.S. Patent Application No. 14/511,288Google Scholar
Li, M, Tank, H, Kennedy, A, Zhang, H, Downer, B, Ouse, D, Liu, L. (2013). Enlist Duo herbicide: a novel 2, 4-D plus glyphosate premix formulation with low potential for off-target movement. In Pesticide Formulation and Delivery Systems: 32nd Volume, Innovating Legacy Products for New Uses. West Consohohocken, PA: ASTM International10.1520/STP155820120079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, KV (2017) Notice of Pesticide Registration, GF-3335. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/062719-00695-20170131.pdf Accessed: January 16, 2019Google Scholar
Müller, F (2000) Agrochemicals; composition, production, toxicology, application. 1st ed. Weinheim Germany: Wiley VCH Google Scholar
Mulqueen, P (2003) Recent advances in agrochemical formulation. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 106:83–-107 10.1016/S0001-8686(03)00106-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nalewaja, JD, Matysiak, R (1993) Spray carrier salts affect herbicide toxicity to kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Technol 7:154–158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Wozinca, Z, Manthey, FA (1990) Sodium bicarbonate antagonism of 2,4-D amine. Weed Technol 4:588–591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Wozinca, Z, Matysiak, R (1991) 2,4-D amine antagonism by salts. Weed Technol 5:873–880 10.1017/S0890037X00034011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, AJ, Weisenberger, DV, Johnson, WG (2016) Divalent cations in spray water influence 2,4-D efficacy on dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and broadleaf plantain (Plantago major). Weed Technol 30:431–440 10.1614/WT-D-15-00120.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, AJ, Weisenberger, DV, Schortgen, GP (2018) 2,4-D–Resistant Buckhorn Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in Managed Turf. Weed Technol 32:182–189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, GE (1967) The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agr Hist 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, RG (1977) A review of foliar absorption and translocation of 2,4-D and 2, 4, 5-T. Weed Res 17:259–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskamp, JM, Chahal, GS, Johnson, WG (2013) The effect of cations and ammonium sulfate on the efficacy of dicamba and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:72–77 10.1614/WT-D-12-00106.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, MR, Lembi, CA (2009) Applied weed science. 2nd ed. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue: University. Pp 138–141 Google Scholar
Schneider, CA, Rasband, WS, Eliceiri, KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schortgen, GP (2017) Enhancing weed control by reducing hard water antagonism of 2,4-D in spray tank mixtures. M.S. thesis. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
Schortgen, GP, Patton, AJ (2020) Weed control by 2,4-D dimethylamine depends on mixture water hardness and adjuvant inclusion but not spray solution storage time. Weed Technol 34:107–116 10.1017/wet.2019.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, H, Tank, H, inventors; Dow Agrosciences, assignee (2015) Pesticide emulsion concentrates containing natural or petroleum derived oils and methods of use. U.S. Patent Application No. 14/535,455Google Scholar
Stagg, N, Blewett, T, Tank, H, Li, M, Liu, L, inventors; Dow Agrosciences, assignee (2013) October 22. Aqueous herbicidal concentrates of auxinic carboxylic acids with reduced eye irritation. U.S. Patent No. 8,563,473 B2Google Scholar
Szabo, SS, Buchholtz, KP (1961) Penetration of living and non-living surfaces by 2,4-D as influenced by ionic additives. Weeds 9:177–184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, S, Crabtree, GD (1994) Cuticular penetration of 2,4-D as affected by interaction between diethylene glycol monooleate surfactant and apple leaf cuticles. Pestic Sci 41:35–39 10.1002/ps.2780410107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, WT (1986). Agricultural Chemicals, Book II, Herbicides. Fresno, CA: Thompson Publications Google Scholar
Tu, M, Hurd, C, Randall, JM (2001). Weed Control Methods Handbook. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. https://www.invasive.org/gist/products/handbook/methods-handbook.pdf. Accessed: October 16, 2020Google Scholar