Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:34:23.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Response to Foliar Coapplications of Glyphosate and Zinc Sulfate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Derek M. Scroggs ,
Donnie K. Miller ,
Alexander M. Stewart ,
B. Rogers Leonard ,
James L. Griffin  and
David C. Blouin
Derek M. Scroggs*
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 8105 Tom Bowman Drive, Alexandria, LA 71302
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Alexander M. Stewart
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 8105 Tom Bowman Drive, Alexandria, LA 71302
B. Rogers Leonard
Affiliation:
Macon Ridge Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 212A Macon Ridge Road, Winnsboro, LA 71295
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences, 104 Sturgis Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 161 Agricultural Administration Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted during 2006 and 2007 and a container study was performed twice in 2007 at the Dean Lee Research and Extension Center in Alexandria, LA to evaluate the interaction of glyphosate and zinc coapplied to selected weeds. Across all experiments, no differences in either visible weed control or weed fresh weight were detected among glyphosate formulations. In the field studies, weed control was greatest when glyphosate was applied alone, in which case control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, and Palmer amaranth ranged between 93 and 95%. When glyphosate was coapplied with formulations of zinc, control of the aforementioned weed species was reduced to 39, 39, and 45%, respectively. Visual estimates of weed control in the container studies showed glyphosate performance to be the highest (82 to 98%) in the absence of zinc for control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, johnsongrass, ivyleaf morningglory, and redroot pigweed. Across all weed species, control was reduced 43 to 59% when zinc was coapplied with glyphosate. Similar results were noted in reduction of weed fresh weights. Results indicate that glyphosate-based weed control is reduced when coapplied with the zinc products at their current use rates. Producers should be aware of this antagonism and these coapplications should not be recommended.

Keywords

Glyphosatebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGbrowntop millet, Urochloa ramosa (L.) Nguyen PANRAjohnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. IPOHEPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREAntagonismphytotoxicityherbicide–fertilizer combinationsmicronutrients
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 171 - 174
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

Anonymous, , 2006a. Specimen label for TraFix® Zn micronutrient. Helena Chemical Co., Collierville, TN 38017.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2006b. Specimen label for RSA® Liquid Zinc 7% Nutrient Complex. RSA MicroTech, LLC., Marysville, WA 98270.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2007. Specimen label for Roundup Weathermax® herbicide. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO 63167. EPA reg. num. 524–537.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Glyphosate interactions with manganese. Weed Technol 16:792–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernards, M. L., Thelen, K. D., and Penner, D. 2005a. Glyphosate efficacy is antagonized by manganese. Weed Technol 19:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernards, M. L., Thelen, K. D., Penner, D., Muthukumaran, R. B., and McCracken, J. L. 2005b. Glyphosate interaction with manganese in tank mixtures and its effect on glyphosate absorption and translocation. Weed Sci 53:787–794.Google Scholar
Berry, W. 2007. Symptoms of deficiency in essential minerals. Plant Physiology Online. 4th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Chapter 5. Web page: http://4e.plantphys.net/article.phpch5id289. Accessed: August 30, 2007.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of water quality, carrier volume and acid on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci 31:163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:411–420.Google Scholar
Epstein, E. 1972. Mineral metabolism. Pages 285–322. in. Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G. R., Delaney, D. P., and Sanders, J. C. 2004. Cotton and weed response to glyphosate applied with sulfur-containing additives. Weed Technol 18:404–411.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38. in Camper, N. D., editor. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gauvrit, C. 2003. Glyphosate response to calcium, ethoxylated amine surfactant, and ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol 17:799–804.Google Scholar
Hartmann, H. T., Kofranek, A. M., Rubatzky, V. E., and Flocker, W. J. 1988. Soil and water management and mineral nutrition. Pages 213. in Stone, J. L., editor. Plant Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Marra, M. C. and Phaneuf, D. 2005. Anticipated benefits from flex cotton: results of a beltwide survey. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2005 431.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Main, C. L., Thompson, M. A., and Steckel, L. E. 2006. Comparison of glyphosate salts (isopropylamine, diammonium, and potassium) and calcium and magnesium concentrations on the control of various weeds. Weed Technol 20:164–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci 39:622–628.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Oliver, T., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Allen, N. S. 2002a. Use of digital image analysis, viability stains, and germination assays to estimate conventional and glyphosate-resistant cotton pollen viability. Crop Sci 42:2193–2200.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J. F., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by the herbicide glyphosate. Weed Sci 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002c. Accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J. Ag. Food Chem 50:506–512.Google Scholar
Sankula, S. and Blumenthal, E. 2004. Impacts on U.S. agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2003—an update of eleven case studies. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Washington, DC. 35. Web page: http://www.monsantoafrica.com/content/resources/scientific/04/10-04b/pdf. Accessed: January 18, 2004.Google Scholar
SAS 2003. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Scroggs, D. M., Miller, D. K., Griffin, J. L., Geaghan, J. P., Vidrine, P. R., and Stewart, A. M. 2005. Glyphosate efficacy on selected weed species is unaffected by chemical coapplication. Weed Technol 19:1012–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taiz, L. and Zeiger, E. 2002. Mineral Nutrition. Plant Physiology. 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 28–42.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. D., Jackson, E. P., and Penner, D. 1995. The basis for the hard water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci 43:541–548.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states: 2001 broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:245–248.Google Scholar