The CoAXium® Production System includes a new herbicide-resistant wheat (AXigen®) that allows for fall and/or spring postemergence (POST) applications of quizalofop-P-ethyl (QPE) for control of winter annual grass weeds. As area planted with AXigen® wheat increases, so will the use of QPE herbicide, and with this comes an increased chance for physical drift, tank contamination, or misapplication to nearby sensitive plants. A total of eight field studies were conducted at four locations during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 growing seasons to understand the response of nonresistant wheat when exposed to various rates of QPE herbicide. Five rates of QPE were evaluated: 1× (92 g ai ha−1), 1/10×, 1/50×, 1/100×, and 1/200×. Treatments of QPE were applied in the fall (2- to 3-leaf wheat) or in the spring (3- to 4-tiller wheat). Results indicated an interaction between application timing and QPE rate on grain yield for half of the site-years. The 1× rate resulted in complete or near complete grain yield loss regardless of application timing. However, QPE at the 1/10× rate resulted in yield loss ranging from 0% to 41% when fall-applied, whereas spring application resulted in 80% to 100% yield loss. For site-years when only the main effect of QPE rate was significant, 86% to 100% yield loss was observed following exposure to QPE at the 1/10× and 1× rates. For all site-years, it was infrequent that significant yield reductions were observed following the three lowest rates of QPE. If the two highest QPE rates were considered to represent tank contamination or misapplication and the three lowest rates physical drift, we can assume that physical drift of QPE to non-AXigen® wheat is not of major concern if proper application guidelines are followed. Conversely, tank contamination and misapplication should be carefully considered by growers who have planted both AXigen® and non-AXigen® wheat varieties.

The use of different herbicide-resistant soybean technologies in proximity could lead to injury and yield loss due to an application error. Research was initiated to evaluate the effect of 6.25%, 12.5%, and 100% doses of isoxaflutole and mesotrione field use doses applied postemergence to 4-hyroxyphenylpyruvate (HPPD) inhibitor-susceptible soybean, representing physical drift or misapplication doses. Visible injury manifested as chlorosis with slight necrosis, progressing to necrosis and height reduction, with visible height reduction as the only symptom. Isoxaflutole at 6.25% and 12.5% injured V2 soybean more than V1 or V4 soybean at all evaluation dates. This is supported by soybean height data at 14, 28, and 42 d after treatment (DAT). Following the 100% dose, maximum injury occurred at 28 DAT with V1, V2, and V4 soybean injured 90%, 85%, and 72%, but injury declined over time. All isoxaflutole treatments reduced yield at least 310 kg ha−1, with no differences among application timings or between the two lowest doses for a revenue loss of US$147 ha−1 to US$623 ha−1. Visible injury following mesotrione manifested as chlorosis and necrosis advancing to visible height reduction. Following mesotrione at 6.25% and 12.5%, injury ranged from 20% to 36% among application timings and did not differ at 3 to 21 DAT. Soybean heights at 28 and 42 DAT do not support injury observations; therefore, the greater injury was due to chlorosis and necrosis. Following mesotrione at 100%, sensitivity decreased at 3 to 14 DAT when applied to later growth stages, with no differences at 42 DAT. Yields did not differ among application timings, but yield losses were at least 240 kg ha−1, with revenue losses of US$60 ha−1 and US$373 ha−1. Producers are cautioned to prevent off-target movement or errant application of isoxaflutole or mesotrione to HPPD inhibitor-susceptible soybean.

Field studies were conducted to determine the effects of synthetic auxin herbicides at simulated exposure rates applied to ‘Covington’ sweetpotato propagation beds on the quality of nonrooted stem cuttings (slips). Treatments included diglycolamine salt of dicamba, 2,4-D choline plus nonionic surfactant (NIS), and 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate at 1/10, 1/33, or 1/66 of a 1X application rate (560 g ae ha−1 dicamba, 1,065 g ae ha−1 2,4-D choline, 1,130 g ae ha−1 glyphosate) applied at 2 or 4 wk after first slip harvest (WASH). Injury to sweetpotato 2 wk after treatment was greatest when herbicides were applied 2 WASH (21%) compared to 4 WASH (16%). More slip injury was caused by 2,4-D choline than by dicamba, and the addition of glyphosate did not increase injury over 2,4-D choline alone. Two weeks after the second application, sweetpotato slips were cut 2 cm above the soil surface and transplanted into production fields. In 2019, sweetpotato ground coverage 8 wk after transplanting was reduced 37% and 26% by the 1/10X rates of dicamba and 2,4-D choline plus NIS, respectively. Though dicamba caused less injury to propagation beds than 2,4-D choline with or without glyphosate, after transplanting, slips treated with 1/10X dicamba did not recover as quickly as those treated with 2,4-D choline. In 2020, sweetpotato ground coverage was 90% or greater for all treatments. Dicamba applied 2 WASH decreased marketable sweetpotato storage root yield by 59% compared to the nontreated check, whereas treatments including 2,4-D choline reduced marketable yield 22% to 29%. All herbicides applied at 4 WASH reduced marketable yield 31% to 36%. The addition of glyphosate to 2,4-D choline did not increase sweetpotato yield. Results indicate that caution should be taken when deciding whether to transplant sweetpotato slips that are suspected to have been exposed to dicamba or 2,4-D choline.

Availability of soybean with dicamba resistance will provide an alternative weed management option, but risk of dicamba injury to sensitive crops from off-target movement and spray tank contamination is of concern. Research conducted at multiple locations and years evaluated soybean injury and yield response to POST applications of the diglycolamine salt of dicamba. Dicamba was applied at the two to three trifoliate stage (V3/V4) at 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, 70, 140, and 280 g ae ha−1 (1/128 to 1/2 of the recommended use rate of 560 g ae ha−1). Soybean injury 7 d after application was 20% following dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1 and increased to 89% at 280 g ha−1. At 14 d after application, injury for the same rates increased from 39 to 97%. In a separate study, dicamba was applied at first flower (R1) at 1.1, 2.2, 4.4, 8.8, 17.5, 35, and 70 g ha−1 (1/512 to 1/8 of use rate). Soybean injury 7 d following dicamba application was 19% at 1.1 g ha−1 and increased to 64% at 70 g ha−1. For the same rates of dicamba, injury from 7 to 14 d after application increased no more than 4 percentage points. For dicamba rates in common for the timing studies, soybean injury 14 d after treatment was greatest for application at V3/V4, but the negative effect on mature soybean height and yield was greatest for application at R1. For dicamba at 4.4 g ha−1 (1/128th of use rate), soybean yield was reduced 4% when applied at V3/V4 and 10% when applied at R1. For 17.5 g ha−1 dicamba (1/32 of use rate), yield was reduced 15% at V3/V4 and 36% at R1. Based on yield reductions for 4.4 and 17.5 g ha−1 dicamba, soybean at flowering was around 2.5 times more sensitive compared with vegetative exposure.