Relative Sensitivity of Conventional Soybean to Three Dicamba Based Herbicides at Different Growth Stages

  • Stevan Knežević University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/30actaherb-33914

Abstract


Widespread use of dicamba-based herbicides such as Clarity® (dicamba diglycolamine salt, 480 g l-1), Engenia® (dicamba N,N-Bis-[3-aminopropyl] methylamine salt, 600 g l-1) and XtendiMax® (dicamba diglycolamine salt, 350 g l-1) with Vapor-Grip Technology for weed control in dicamba-tolerant (DT) crops have resulted in un-intended drifts, partly due to windy and common temperature inversions in many parts of United States. It is unclear if the dicamba-based herbicides made of different formulations or technologies have differential impact on sensitive soybeans including a conventional variety.  Thus, field studies were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to evaluate the relative sensitivity of a conventional soybean to micro-rates of three dicamba-based herbicide products (Clarity®, Engenia® and XtendiMax®) applied at three soybean growth stages (V2, V7/R1 and R2 stages). The dicamba micro-rates were 0, 0.56, 1.12, 5.6, 11.2, and 56 g ae ha-1; equivalent to 0, 1/1000, 1/500, 1/100, 1/50, 1/10 of the standard rate (560 g ae ha-1) respectively. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design in a split-split-plot arrangement with 4 replications. There was no significant difference in visual injury, growth or yield response of the conventional soybean to the three dicamba herbicides. The dicamba micro rates caused 40-80% visual injury and 0-97% yield loss depending on the growth stage of application. The estimated effective doses (ED values) suggested that conventional soybeans exposed to dicamba micro-rates at V7/R1 growth stage were more sensitive than those exposed at V2 and R2 growth stages. Based on the ED values, about 0.1% of dicamba standard rate was enough to cause 10% soybean yield loss when applied at V7/R1 stage; while about 1% of dicamba standard rate was required to cause the same level of yield loss when applied at V2 or R2 stage. By implication, dicamba drift on sensitive soybean plants should be avoided to prevent yield loss. 

References

Andersen, S.M., Clay, S. A., Wrage, L. J., Matthees, D.: Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron. J. 96 (3): 750 – 760, 2004.
Auch, D. E., Arnold, W.: Dicamba use and injury on soybeans ( Glycine max ) in South Dakota. Weed Sci. 26 (5): 471 – 475, 1978.
Derksen, D. A.: Dicamba , chlorsulfuron and clopyralid as sprayer contaminants on sunflower (Helianthus annuus), mustard (Brassica juncea), and lentil (Lens culinaris), respectively. Weed Sci. 37: 616 – 621, 1989.
Egan, J. F., Mortensen, D. A.: Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31 (5): 1023 – 1031, 2012.
Griffin, J. L., Bauerle, M. J., Stephenson, D. O., Miller, D. K., Boudreaux. J. M.: Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol. 27 (4): 696 – 703, 2013.
Knezevic, S. Z., Osipitan, O. A., Scott, J. E.: Sensitivity of grape and tomato to micro - rates of dicamba - based herbicides. J. Hortic. 5: 1 – 5, 2018.
Knezevic, S. Z., Streibig, J. C.Ritz, C.: Utilizing R software package for dose - response studies: The concept and data analysis. Weed Technol. 21 (3): 840 – 848, 2007.
Maybank, J., Yoshida, K., Grover, R.: Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 28 (10): 1009 – 1014, 1978.
Osipitan, O. A., Knezevic, S. Z.: Yield of dryland glyphosate-tolerant, glufosinate-tolerant, and conventional soybeans as influenced by micro-rates of clarity. 72nd Annual Meeting of North Central Weed Science Society, ST. Louis, Mo, USA, abstract 106, 4 Dec, 2017.
Robinson, A. P., Simpson, D. M., Johnson, W. G.: Response of glyphosate - tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci. 61 (4): 526 – 536, 2013.
Soltani, N., Nurse, R.E., Sikkema, P. H.: Response of glyphosate - resistant soybean to dicamba spray tank contamination during vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Can. J. Plant Sci. 96 (1): 160 – 164, 2016.
Weidenhamer, J., Jr, G. T.: Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J. 643 (141): 637 – 643, 1989.
Wolf, T. M., Groverl, R.,Wallace, I., Shewchuk, S. R., Maybanks, J.: Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 26 – 273, 1993.
Weed Science Society of America (WSSA): WSSA research workshop for managing dicamba off - target movement: Final report, 2018.
www.wssa.net
Published
2021/11/25
Issue
Vol. 30 No. 1 (2021): Acta herbologica
Section
Članci
Autori koji objavljuju u ovom časopisu pristaju na sledeće uslove:

  1. Autori zadržavaju autorska prava i pružaju časopisu pravo prvog objavljivanja rada i licenciraju ga "Creative Commons Attribution licencom" koja omogućava drugima da dele rad, uz uslov navođenja autorstva i izvornog objavljivanja u ovom časopisu.

  2. Autori mogu izraditi zasebne, ugovorne aranžmane za neekskluzivnu distribuciju članka objavljenog u časopisu (npr. postavljanje u institucionalni repozitorijum ili objavljivanje u knjizi), uz navođenje da je članak izvorno objavljen u ovom časopisu.

  3. Autorima je dozvoljeno i podstiču se da postave objavljeni članak onlajn (npr. u institucionalni repozitorijum ili na svoju internet stranicu) pre ili tokom postupka prijave rukopisa, s obzirom da takav postupak može voditi produktivnoj razmeni ideja i ranijoj i većoj citiranosti objavljenog članka (Vidi Efekti otvorenog pristupa).