Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T00:27:01.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Efficacy on Velvetleaf Varies with Application Time of Day

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Aaron L. Waltz ,
Alex R. Martin ,
Fred W. Roeth  and
John L. Lindquist
Aaron L. Waltz*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 279 Plant Science, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 279 Plant Science, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Fred W. Roeth
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 279 Plant Science, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
John L. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 279 Plant Science, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: awaltz1@bigred.unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and growth chamber experiments determined the efficacy of temporal glyphosate applications on velvetleaf. Glyphosate was applied postemergence to velvetleaf periodically before and during light and after dark. In 1999, glyphosate at 840 g ae/ha applied before sunrise and after midday provided 54 and 100% velvetleaf control, respectively. In 2000, glyphosate at 840 g/ha applied before sunrise, midday, and after sunset provided 69, 100, and 37% velvetleaf control, respectively. In the growth chamber, glyphosate at 840 g/ha applied before or after light reduced velvetleaf biomass 15 to 20% or 32 to 47%, respectively, and reduced velvetleaf height 24% or 45 to 54%, respectively. Velvetleaf control was consistently greater with glyphosate applications during light compared with dark, regardless of constant air temperature and relative humidity (growth chamber), dew absence or presence (field and growth chamber), or leaf blade orientation (growth chamber) with natural light–dark movements or a fixed horizontal position.

Keywords

Glyphosatevelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. #3 ABUTHApplication timingdifferential responseDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergencePPFD, photosynthetic photon flux densityRH, relative humidity.

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 931 - 939
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Adkins, S. W., Tanpipat, S., Swarbrick, J. T., and Boersma, M. 1998. Influence of environmental factors on glyphosate when applied to Avena fatua or Urochloa panicoides . Weed Res 38:129–138.Google Scholar
Andersen, R. N. and Koukkari, W. L. 1978. Response of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to bentazon as affected by leaf orientation. Weed Sci. 26:393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, R. 1977. Influence of dew on the phytotoxicity of foliarly applied herbicides. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf 32:116.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. ed. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in Canada and the United States. WSSA Weed Loss Committee. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. P. 115.Google Scholar
Caseley, J. C. and Coupland, D. 1983. Day compared with night application of glyphosate for Elymus repens control in cereals. Asp. Appl. Biol 4:301–307.Google Scholar
Feng, P. C. C., Joseph Sandbrink, J., and Douglas Sammons, R. 2000. Retention, uptake, and translocation of 14C-glyphosate from track-spray applications and correlation to rainfastness in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Technol. 14:127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, H. R., Nyffeler, A., and Green, D. H. 1983. The influence of rainfall, temperature, humidity and light on soil- and foliar-applied herbicides. Asp. Appl. Biol 4:1–14.Google Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. 1967. Environmental factors and susceptibility to herbicides. Weeds 15:330–335.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1977. Effects of temperature and relative humidity on the toxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 25:448–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudsk, P., Olesen, T., and Thonke, K. E. 1990. The influence of temperature, humidity and simulated rainfall on the performance of thiameturon-methyl. Weed Res 30:261–269.Google Scholar
Martinson, K. B. 2000. The Effect of Time of Day of Application, Rate and Adjuvant on Annual Weed Control with Glyphosate and Glufosinate. M.S. thesis. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Pp. 53–57.Google Scholar
McIntrye, G. I. and Hsiao, A. I. 1982. Influence of nitrogen and humidity on rhizome bud growth and glyphosate translocation in quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 30:655–660.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., Jordan, T. N., and Wills, G. D. 1980. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate in soybeans (Glycine max) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 28:113–118.Google Scholar
Muzik, T. J. 1976. Influence of environmental factors on toxicity to plants. in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides: Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology, Volume 1. London: Academic. Pp. 203–247.Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2001 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. Pp. 58, 64.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliver, L. R., and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Diurnal leaf movement effects on spray interception and glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 13:466–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D. E. and Al-Khatib, K. 1999. The influence of application time of day on glyphosate efficacy. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc 54:17–18.Google Scholar
Price, C. E. 1983. The effect of environment on foliage uptake and translocation of herbicides. Asp. Appl. Biol 4:157–169.Google Scholar
Røyneberg, T., Balke, N. E., and Lund-Høie, K. 1992. Effects of adjuvants and temperature on glyphosate absorption by cultured cells of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic). Weed Res 32:419–428.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot 38:407–416.Google Scholar
Tanpipat, S., Adkins, S. W., Swarbrick, J. T., and Boersma, M. 1997. Influence of selected environmental factors on glyphosate efficacy when applied to awnless barnyard grass (Echinochloa colona (L.) Link). Aust. J. Agric. Res 48:695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willingham, G. L. and Graham, L. L. 1988. Influence of environmental factors and adjuvants on the foliar penetration of acifluorfen in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti): an analysis using the fractional factorial design. Weed Sci. 36:824–829.Google Scholar