Taking an environmentally sensitive approach to pest management
When your vines experience herbicide drift be responsive and follow a reasonable response plan but don't forget about using the incident as means to implement a proactive prevention plan.
Herbicide drift is off-site movement and can result in non-target plant injury. Off-site movement of herbicides can occur by volatilization or physical drift.
Volatilization is the conversion from a liquid or solid state to a gas or vapor state after the herbicide has been applied to the intended site. The herbicide in the gas or vapor phase may then move off-site and is affected by air temperature, wind speed, and moisture. Herbicides with high vapor pressures are considerably more volatile than herbicides with low vapor pressures. As an example, ester formulations of 2,4-D have higher vapor pressure and tend to volatilize more than amine formulations. The volatility can increase during hot dry weather.
Physical drift is the off-site movement of herbicide droplets prior to deposition at the intended site. Both environmental conditions and application equipment setup can play a role in physical drift. Wind speeds over 10 mph coupled with high temperatures and low humidity can cause spray droplets to evaporate quickly before deposition. These smaller herbicide-laden water droplets can then move from the intended site of application. Although spray equipment set-up is important and includes; nozzle selection, spray pressure, and boom height, physical drift can often be avoided if applications are avoided during high winds, low humidity, and high temperatures.
Action Steps
Daryl Slade
Pesticide Enforcement/Pesticide Use Complaints
573-751-5511
Missouri Department of Agriculture Enforcement and Inspections
Auxiliary Step: For those that want to go the extra step and fully document what herbicide(s) may be causing the damage, the affected tissues can be screened for the presence of herbicides. Contact SGS Analytical Services for pricing and sample submission. If interested in this service be sure to collect a sample when symptoms first appear because over time the grape plant will metabolize the active ingredient into metabolites. I do not endorse this lab over any others.
Another Consideration. Also be aware that if a herbicide residue is found within a crop in which the product is not labelled that there is the potential that the crop may not be able to be harvested. For example, if 2,4-D resides are found within grape leaves that would be off label as 2,4-D is not labelled to be used in grapes. Even though the product was not applied but drifted onto the grape crop.
Grapevines are sensitive to a number of herbicides. Many grape growers are familiar with the damage caused by 2,4-D. The herbicide 2,4-D is classified as a phenoxy herbicide. There are a number of herbicides that can cause similar symptomology as 2,4-D on grapes. All of these herbicides are classified as auxin growth regulators (Table 1).
Table 1 Common auxin growth regulator herbicides that can cause injury to grape vines.
Herbicide Class |
Common name |
Active ingredient |
Trade name |
Phenoxyacetic |
2,4-D |
Dimethylamine salt of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid |
2,4-D |
MCPA |
Dimethylamine salt of 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid |
MCPA |
|
Benzoic Acids |
dicamba |
3,6-dichloro-2methoxybenzoic acid |
Banvel, Clarity |
Picilinic Acids (Pyridines) |
picloram |
4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid |
Tordon, Grazon1 |
clopyralid |
3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid |
Stinger, Transline |
|
triclopyr |
2,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyloxyacetic acid |
Crossbow2, Garlon |
1 Grazon is a premix and also contains 2,4-D.
2 Crossbow is a premix and also contains 2,4-D as a butoxyethyl ester.
Some of these herbicides are used in agricultural row-crops to control broadleaf weeds. However be aware that 2,4-D, MCPA, and dicamba are also available in premixes to control many broadleaf weeds in lawns or turf. The picolinic acids and pyridines that includes products containing picloram, clopyralid or triclopyr are often used to control woody vegetation in ditches, fence lines, right-of-ways, and grass pastures. All the herbicides listed in Table 1 have the potential to volatize and lift off the intended target site after application.
Although the growth regulator herbicides are often reported as causing injury to grapes there are also a number of other herbicides that can cause herbicide injury to grapevines. Glyphosate the active ingredient in a number of herbicides (Roundup Ultra, Weathermax, Touchdown etc.) can cause substantial damage to grapevines if it comes in contact with green tissue.
The Weathermax label specifically states to keep the spray mixture off green grape tissues such as leaves, shoots, suckers, and green trunks. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide and is readily translocated to growing points in the roots and shoots causing cell death. A number of glyphosate containing products are used both in row-crop agriculture, right-of-ways, and by homeowners. Although glyphosate does not have the propensity to volatilize like the growth regulator herbicides, the spray mixture can move off-target if not applied in accordance with the label.
Not sure what herbicide may be causing the damage? Review this herbicide mode of action chart to narrow the possibilities.
In the immediate future grape vineyards throughout the Eastern corn and soybean belt will likely be exposed to a very toxic combination of herbicides. Both Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences will be releasing corn and soybeans that are resistant to both glyphosate and phenoxy herbicides. The phenoxy herbicide resistance will be to dicamba in Monsanto's Xtend products and 2,4-D in Dow AgroSciences Enlist products.
Recognizing herbicide drift symptomology is the first step in diagnosing a potential drift incident. Although glyphosate combined with dicamba or 2,4-D is very damaging to grapevines, previous research has provided limited herbicide combination symptomology that has practical diagnostic application (AL-Khatib et al. 1993).
Current research by my colleagues and me documented herbicide symptomology using time lapse photography on greenhouse grown Norton grapevines to foliar applications of glyphosate, dicamba, 2,4-D, and the combinations of glyphosate + dicamba and glyphosate + 2,4-D. The herbicide rates applied represent 1/100 the recommended use rate of 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, 2,4-D + glyphosate and dicamba + glyphosate. Additionally an untreated control. The rates applied were 0.01 lb/acre 2,4-D, 0.005 lb/acre dicamba, 0.01 lb/acre glyphosate, 0.01 lb/acre 2,4-D + 0.01 lb/acre glyphosate, 0.005 lb/acre dicamba + 0.01 lb glyphosate, and an untreated control. The experiment was conducted within greenhouses and time-lapse cameras took photographs every 10 minutes over a period of 21 days after treatment. Below are some selected time points showing the development of symptomology from 1/100 the recommended use rate of 2,4-D.
hours after treatment | Untreated | 2,4-D |
3 | ||
24 | ||
48 | ||
168 |
Subscribe to receive similar articles sent directly to your inbox!
REVISED: February 21, 2017