Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:04:14.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed control by 2,4-D dimethylamine depends on mixture water hardness and adjuvant inclusion but not spray solution storage time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 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: Aaron J. Patton, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, 625 Agriculture Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides are an important tool in managing weeds in turf and agricultural production. One of the earliest selective herbicides, 2,4-D, is a weak acid herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds. Water-quality parameters, such as pH and hardness, influence the efficacy of weak acid herbicides. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate how varying water hardness level, spray solution storage time, and adjuvant inclusion affected broadleaf weed control by 2,4-D dimethylamine. The first experiment evaluated a range of water-hardness levels (from 0 to 600 mg calcium carbonate [CaCO3] L−1) on efficacy of 2,4-D dimethylamine applied at 1.60 kg ae ha−1 for dandelion and horseweed control. A second experiment evaluated dandelion control from spray solutions prepared 0, 1, 4, 24, and 72 h before application. Dandelion and horseweed control by 2,4-D dimethylamine was reduced when the CaCO3 level in water was at least 422 or at least 390 mg L−1, respectively. Hard-water antagonism was overcome by the addition of 20 g L−1 ammonium sulfate (AMS) into the mixture. When AMS was included in spray mixtures, no differences were observed at 600 mg CaCO3 L−1, compared with distilled water. Spray solution storage time did not influence dandelion control, regardless of water-hardness level or adjuvant inclusion. To prevent antagonism, applicators should use a water-conditioning agent such as AMS when applying 2,4-D dimethylamine in hard water.

Keywords

2,4-D amineammonium sulfateantagonismcalciumhard waterresidence timewater qualityweak acid2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)2,4-D dimethylaminedandelion, Taraxacum officinale F. H. Wigg. TAROFhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.), Cronq. ERICA
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 107 - 116
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: Scott McElroy, Auburn University

References

Anonymous (2009) Buttress® selective herbicide product label. Nufarm Australia Limited Publication No. 46043/0407. Loverton North, Victoria, Australia: Nufarm. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2004) Roundup® Original herbicide product label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company. 21 pGoogle Scholar
Beck, LL, Patton, AJ (2015) Weed garden: an effective tool for extension education. J Extension 53(4):Article 4TOT8. http://www.joe.org/joe/2015august/tt8.php. Accessed: January 17, 2019Google Scholar
Bekbölet, M, Yenigün, O, Yücel, I (1999) Sorption studies of 2,4-D on selected soils. Water, Air Soil Poll 111:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, CE (2015) Water Quality: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Auburn, AL: Springer. 357 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, J, Appleby, AP (1986) Effects of ammonium sulphate on leaf growth inhibition by glyphosate in Cyperus esuclentus L. Crop Prot 5:314–318CrossRefGoogle 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 30:878–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devkota, P, Whitford, F, Johnson, WG (2016) Influence of spray-solution temperature and holding duration on weed control with premixed glyphosate and dicamba formulation. Weed Technol 30:116–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etō, M (1974) Organophosphorus Pesticides: Organic and Biological Chemistry. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. P. 57Google Scholar
Hem, JD (1985) Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. 3rd edn. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution and Prevention. Water-Supply Paper 2254. Pp 63–64Google Scholar
[IDNR] Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1999) Ambient ground water chemistry. https://www.in.gov/dnr/water/5246.htm. Accessed: January 18, 2019Google Scholar
Kelly, JA (1953) Commercial herbicides, present methods of formulation. Agric Food Chem 1:254–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, DR (2012) Organic Chemistry. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pp 94–135Google Scholar
Kuhr, RJ, Dorough, HW (1976) Carbamate Insecticides: Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Toxicology. Cleveland, OH: CRC Press. Pp 19–20Google Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2014) The effect of hard water, spray solution storage time, and ammonium sulfate on glyphosate efficacy and yield of glyphosate-resistant corn. Can J Plant Sci 94:1401–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullan, PM (2000) Utility adjuvants. Weed Technol 14:792–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Matysiak, R (1991) Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci 39:622–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Matysiak, R (1993) Spray carrier salts affect herbicide toxicity to kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Technol 7:154–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, JD, Woznica, Z, Manthey, FA (1990) Sodium bicarbonate antagonism of 2,4-D amine. Weed Technol 4:588–591CrossRefGoogle 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 30:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, AJ, Weisenberger, DV, Schortgen, GP (2018) 2,4-D resistant buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata) in managed turf. Weed Technol 32:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, GE (1967) The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agr Hist 41:243–254Google Scholar
Peterson, MA, McMaster, SA, Riechers, DE, Kelston, J, Shalman, PW (2016) 2,4-D past, present, and future: a review. Weed Technol 30:303–345CrossRefGoogle 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 27:72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, MR, Lembi, CA (1999) Applied weed science. 2nd edn. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue: University. Pp 84–86Google Scholar
Schneider, CA, Rasband, WS, Eliceiri, KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senseman, SA, ed (2007) Herbicide Handbook. 9th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 458 pGoogle Scholar
Shea, PJ, Tupy, DR (1984) Reversal of cation-induced reduction in glyphosate activity with EDTA. Weed Sci 32:802–806Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Cowbrough, M, Sikkema, PH. 2009. How long can a herbicide remain in the spray tank without losing efficacy? Crop Prot 28:1086–1090CrossRefGoogle 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 41:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, C, Sigler, A (2013) Pesticide performance and water quality. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension, MT201305AG. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Thelen, KD, Jackson, EP, Penner, D (1995) The basis for the hard-water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci 43:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) 2,4-D RED Facts. https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/html/24d_fs.html. Accessed: August 31, 2015Google Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Pesticide industry sales and usage: 2006 and 2007 market estimates.33 p. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/market_estimates2007.pdf. Accessed: January 13, 2019Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2015 Baseline survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-Weed-Survey_Baseline.xlsx. Accessed: January 17, 2019Google Scholar
Vlek, PLG, Craswell, ET (1981) Ammonia volatilization from flooded soils. Fertil Res 2:227–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, F, Penner, D, Johnson, B, Bledsoe, L, Wagoner, N, Garr, J, Wise, K, Obermeyer, J, Blessing, A (2009) The impact of water quality on pesticide performance. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, PPP-86. 38 pGoogle Scholar
Zollinger, RK, Nalewaja, JD, Peterson, DE, Young, BG (2010) Effect of hard water and ammonium sulfate on weak acid herbicide activity. JASTM Int 7:1–10Google Scholar