Maria Leticia Zaccaro-Gruener, Jason K. Norsworthy, Leonard B Piveta, L. Tom Barber, Andy Mauromoustakos, Thomas C. Mueller, Trenton L. Roberts
{"title":"利用低隧道描述除草剂、佐剂和靶表面对麦草畏挥发性的影响","authors":"Maria Leticia Zaccaro-Gruener, Jason K. Norsworthy, Leonard B Piveta, L. Tom Barber, Andy Mauromoustakos, Thomas C. Mueller, Trenton L. Roberts","doi":"10.1017/wet.2023.74","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Investigations of the relevance of low tunnel methodology and air sampling concerning the off-target movement of dicamba were conducted from 2018 to 2022, focused primarily on volatility. This research, divided into three experiments, evaluated the impact of herbicides and adjuvants added to dicamba and the type of surface treated on dicamba volatility. Treatment combinations included glyphosate and glufosinate, the presence of a simulated contamination rate of ammonium sulfate (AMS), the benefit of a volatility reduction agent (VRA), and a vegetated (dicamba-resistant cotton) or soil surface treated with dicamba. Volatility assessments included air sampling collected over 48 h. Dicamba treatments were applied four times to each of two bare soil or cotton trays and placed inside the tunnels. The extraction and quantification of dicamba from air samples were conducted. Field assessments included the maximum and average visible injury in bioindicator soybean and the lateral movement of dicamba damage expressed by the furthest distance from the center of the plots to the position in which plants had 5% injury. Adding glufosinate and glyphosate to dicamba increased the dicamba amount in air samples. A simulated tank contamination rate of AMS (0.005% v/v) did not impact dicamba emissions compared to a treatment lacking AMS. Adding a VRA reduced dicamba in air samples by 70% compared to treatment without the adjuvant. Dicamba treatments applied on vegetation generally produced greater amounts of dicamba detected than treatments applied to bare soil. Field assessment results usually followed differences in dicamba concentration by treatments tested. Results showed that low tunnel methodology allowed simultaneous comparisons of several treatment combinations concerning dicamba volatility.","PeriodicalId":23710,"journal":{"name":"Weed Technology","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of Low Tunnels to Describe Effects of Herbicide, Adjuvant, and Target Surface on Dicamba Volatility\",\"authors\":\"Maria Leticia Zaccaro-Gruener, Jason K. Norsworthy, Leonard B Piveta, L. Tom Barber, Andy Mauromoustakos, Thomas C. Mueller, Trenton L. Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/wet.2023.74\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Investigations of the relevance of low tunnel methodology and air sampling concerning the off-target movement of dicamba were conducted from 2018 to 2022, focused primarily on volatility. This research, divided into three experiments, evaluated the impact of herbicides and adjuvants added to dicamba and the type of surface treated on dicamba volatility. Treatment combinations included glyphosate and glufosinate, the presence of a simulated contamination rate of ammonium sulfate (AMS), the benefit of a volatility reduction agent (VRA), and a vegetated (dicamba-resistant cotton) or soil surface treated with dicamba. Volatility assessments included air sampling collected over 48 h. Dicamba treatments were applied four times to each of two bare soil or cotton trays and placed inside the tunnels. The extraction and quantification of dicamba from air samples were conducted. Field assessments included the maximum and average visible injury in bioindicator soybean and the lateral movement of dicamba damage expressed by the furthest distance from the center of the plots to the position in which plants had 5% injury. Adding glufosinate and glyphosate to dicamba increased the dicamba amount in air samples. A simulated tank contamination rate of AMS (0.005% v/v) did not impact dicamba emissions compared to a treatment lacking AMS. Adding a VRA reduced dicamba in air samples by 70% compared to treatment without the adjuvant. Dicamba treatments applied on vegetation generally produced greater amounts of dicamba detected than treatments applied to bare soil. Field assessment results usually followed differences in dicamba concentration by treatments tested. Results showed that low tunnel methodology allowed simultaneous comparisons of several treatment combinations concerning dicamba volatility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Weed Technology\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Weed Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2023.74\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Weed Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2023.74","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Use of Low Tunnels to Describe Effects of Herbicide, Adjuvant, and Target Surface on Dicamba Volatility
Abstract Investigations of the relevance of low tunnel methodology and air sampling concerning the off-target movement of dicamba were conducted from 2018 to 2022, focused primarily on volatility. This research, divided into three experiments, evaluated the impact of herbicides and adjuvants added to dicamba and the type of surface treated on dicamba volatility. Treatment combinations included glyphosate and glufosinate, the presence of a simulated contamination rate of ammonium sulfate (AMS), the benefit of a volatility reduction agent (VRA), and a vegetated (dicamba-resistant cotton) or soil surface treated with dicamba. Volatility assessments included air sampling collected over 48 h. Dicamba treatments were applied four times to each of two bare soil or cotton trays and placed inside the tunnels. The extraction and quantification of dicamba from air samples were conducted. Field assessments included the maximum and average visible injury in bioindicator soybean and the lateral movement of dicamba damage expressed by the furthest distance from the center of the plots to the position in which plants had 5% injury. Adding glufosinate and glyphosate to dicamba increased the dicamba amount in air samples. A simulated tank contamination rate of AMS (0.005% v/v) did not impact dicamba emissions compared to a treatment lacking AMS. Adding a VRA reduced dicamba in air samples by 70% compared to treatment without the adjuvant. Dicamba treatments applied on vegetation generally produced greater amounts of dicamba detected than treatments applied to bare soil. Field assessment results usually followed differences in dicamba concentration by treatments tested. Results showed that low tunnel methodology allowed simultaneous comparisons of several treatment combinations concerning dicamba volatility.
期刊介绍:
Weed Technology publishes original research and scholarship in the form of peer-reviewed articles focused on understanding how weeds are managed.
The journal focuses on:
- Applied aspects concerning the management of weeds in agricultural systems
- Herbicides used to manage undesired vegetation, weed biology and control
- Weed/crop management systems
- Reports of new weed problems
-New technologies for weed management and special articles emphasizing technology transfer to improve weed control
-Articles dealing with plant growth regulators and management of undesired plant growth may also be accepted, provided there is clear relevance to weed science technology, e.g., turfgrass or woody plant management along rights-of-way, vegetation management in forest, aquatic, or other non-crop situations.
-Surveys, education, and extension topics related to weeds will also be considered