Plant Soil Environ., 2023, 69(4):161-169 | DOI: 10.17221/58/2023-PSE

Herbicide drift vs. crop resilience – the influence of micro-ratesOriginal Paper

Milan Brankov1, Bruno Canella Vieira2, Miloš Rajković3, Milena Simić1, Jelena Vukadinović1, Violeta Mandić4, Vesna Dragičević1
1 Maize Research Institute "Zemun Polje"
2 University of Nebraska-Lincoln
3 Institute for Field and Vegetable Crops
4 Institute for Animal Husbandry

A greenhouse study was conducted to test the effects of low herbicide dose exposure on different crops measuring visible damages, plant height, leaf area, and dry matter. Seven crops were tested: lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cv. Novosadska majska maslena, oil pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch) cv. Olivija, oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cv. NS Ras, pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) cv. Kurtovska kapija, soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) cv. ZP Laura, sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) cv. NS Kruna, and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Dunavski Rubin. Herbicide dicamba in the range of 0.14 to 1 155.6 g a.i. (active ingredient)/ha inhibited biomass, height, leaf area, and visual injury of all crops, while glyphosate doses from 0.48 to 3 840 g a.i./ha also reduced the growth of all tested species. A rate of 116 g a.i./ha mesotrione was needed to reach 80% visual injury in oilseed rape, while the same effects on lettuce only required 1.8 g a.i./ha of mesotrione. Tomato and oil pumpkin were also sensitive to low mesotrione doses, where only 1.3 g and 0.5 g a.i./ha of mesotrione was needed for 80% of biomass reduction, respectively. Lettuce was the most sensitive crop of all tested species; biomass was reduced by 80% by dicamba, glyphosate, mesotrione, and nicosulfuron at the low rates of 33 g a.i./ha, 19 g a.i./ha, 1.25 g a.i./ha, and 2.7 g a.i./ha, respectively. Among all herbicides, visible injuries were detected in dicamba at the lowest rates. Soybean was the most tolerant of glyphosate, mesotrione, and nicosulfuron. Based on the available literature and obtained results, herbicide off-target movement must be mitigated to maximise herbicide efficacy and decrease the negative influence on susceptible plants and the environment.

Keywords: weed control; contamination; environmental pollution; crop injury; pesticides

Received: February 13, 2023; Revised: March 29, 2023; Accepted: March 31, 2023; Prepublished online: April 14, 2023; Published: April 25, 2023  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Brankov M, Canella Vieira B, Rajković M, Simić M, Vukadinović J, Mandić V, Dragičević V. Herbicide drift vs. crop resilience – the influence of micro-rates. Plant Soil Environ.. 2023;69(4):161-169. doi: 10.17221/58/2023-PSE.
Download citation

References

  1. Alves G.S., Vieira B.C., Ynfante R.S., Santana T.M., Moraes J.G., Golus J.A., Kruger G.R. (2020): Tank contamination and simulated drift effects of dicamba-containing formulations on soybean cultivars. Agrosystems, Geosciences and Environment, 3: e20065. Go to original source...
  2. Alves G.S., Kruger G.R., da Cunha J.P.A.R., Vieira B.C., Henry R.S., Obradovic A., Grujic M. (2017): Spray drift from dicamba and glyphosate applications in a wind tunnel. Weed Technology, 31: 387-395. Go to original source...
  3. Bohnenblust E.W., Vaudo A.D., Egan J.F., Mortensen D.A., Tooker J.F. (2016): Effects of the herbicide dicamba on nontarget plants and pollinator visitation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35: 144-151. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Bonny S. (2016): Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: overview and impact. Environmental Management, 57: 31-48. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Browne F.B., Li X., Price K.J., Wang J.P., Wang Y., Kruger G.R., Golus J., Macedo G. de C., Vieira B.C., Sandlin T. (2020): Dicamba retention in commercial sprayers following triple rinse cleanout procedures, and soybean response to contamination concentrations. Agronomy, 10: 772. Go to original source...
  6. Chen X., Jhala A., Knezevic S., Wortman S. (2020): Herbicide injury from dicamba and 2,4-D: How much is too much in lettuce? Theses, Disserta-tions, and Student Research in Agronomy and Horticulture. Lincoln, USA.
  7. Damalas C.A. (2015): Pesticide drift: seeking reliable environmental indicators of exposure assessment. In: Armon R.H., Hänninen O. (eds.): Envi-ronmental Indicators. Dordrecht, Springer, 251-261. Go to original source...
  8. Duke S.O., Powles S.B., Sammons, Douglas R. (2018): Glyphosate - how it became a once in a hundred year herbicide and its future. Outlooks on Pest Management, 29: 247-251. Go to original source...
  9. Egan J.F., Barlow K.M., Mortensen D.A. (2014): A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Science, 62: 193-206. Go to original source...
  10. Felsot A.S., Unsworth J.B., Linders J.B.H.J., Roberts G., Rautman D., Harris C., Carazo E. (2010): Agrochemical spray drift; assessment and mitiga-tion - a review. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 46: 1-23. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Gressel J. (2011): Low pesticide rates may hasten the evolution of resistance by increasing mutation frequencies. Pest Management Science, 67: 253-257. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Hilz E., Vermeer A.W.P. (2013): Spray drift review: the extent to which a formulation can contribute to spray drift reduction. Crop Protection, 44: 75-83. Go to original source...
  13. Hynes D.P. (2012): Effects of low dose applications of 2,4-D and dicamba on Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae vegetables. M.S. Theses. Weller, Purdue University.
  14. Kim K.-H., Kabir E., Jahan S.A. (2017): Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Science of The Total Environment, 575: 525-535. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Knežević S.Z. (2016): Weed resistance and new herbicide tolerant crops in USA. Acta Herbologica, 25: 35-42. Go to original source...
  16. Knezevic S.Z., Osipitan O.A., Scott J.E. (2018): Sensitivity of grape and tomato to micro-rates of dicamba-based herbicides. Lincoln, USA. Go to original source...
  17. McCown S., Barber T., Norsworthy J.K. (2018): Response of non-dicamba-resistant soybean to dicamba as influenced by growth stage and herbi-cide rate. Weed Technology, 32: 513-519. Go to original source...
  18. Mohseni-Moghadam M., Wolfe S., Dami I., Doohan D. (2016): Response of wine grape cultivars to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate, and 2,4-D or dicamba plus glyphosate. Weed Technology, 30: 807-814. Go to original source...
  19. Mueller T.C., Steckel L.E. (2019): Dicamba volatility in humidones as affected by temperature and herbicide treatment. Weed Technology, 33: 541-546. Go to original source...
  20. Mueller T.C., Wright D.R., Remund K.M. (2013): Effect of formulation and application time of day on detecting dicamba in the air under field conditions. Weed Science, 61: 586-593. Go to original source...
  21. Rashid B., Husnain T., Riazuddin S. (2010): Herbicides and pesticides as potential pollutants: a global problem. In: Ashraf M., Ozturk M., Ahmad M.S.A. (eds.): Plant Adaptation and Phytoremediation. Dordrecht, Springer, 427-447. ISBN: 978-90-481-9370-7 Go to original source...
  22. Reddy K.N., Ding W., Zablotowicz R.M., Thomson S.J., Huang Y.B., Krutz L.J. (2010): Biological responses to glyphosate drift from aerial applica-tion in non-glyphosate-resistant corn. Pest Management Science, 66: 1148-1154. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Ritz C., Baty F., Streibig J.C., Gerhard D. (2015): Dose-response analysis using R. PLOS One, 10: e0146021. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Sharma A., Kumar V., Shahzad B., Tanveer M., Sidhu G.P.S., Handa N., Kohli S.K., Yadav P., Bali A.S., Parihar R.D., Dar O.I., Singh K., Jasrotia S., Bakshi P., Ramakrishnan M., Kumar S., Bhardwaj R., Thukral A.K. (2019): Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Ap-plied Sciences, 1: 1446. Go to original source...
  25. Soltani N., Oliveira M.C., Alves G.S., Werle R., Norsworthy J.K., Sprague C.L., Young B.G., Reynolds D.B., Brown A., Sikkema P.H. (2020): Off-target movement assessment of dicamba in North America. Weed Technology, 34: 318-330. Go to original source...
  26. Sosnoskie L.M., Culpepper A.S., Braxton L.B., Richburg J.S. (2015): Evaluating the volatility of three formulations of 2,4-D when applied in the field. Weed Technology, 29: 177-184. Go to original source...
  27. Ying G.G. (2018): Chapter 14 - Remediation and mitigation strategies. In: Maestroni B., Cannavan A. (eds.): Integrated Analytical Approaches for Pesticide Management. Netherlands, Elsevier, 207-217. ISBN: 9780128161555 Go to original source...
  28. Young B.G., Young J.M., Matthews J.L. (2003): Soybean (Glycine max) response to foliar applications of mesotrione. Weed Technology, 17: 651-654. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.