ID-453-W

AGRICULTURE
EXTENSION

2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops— Some Facts to Consider
William G. Johnson
Steven G. Hallett
Travis R. LegleiterFred Whitford
Purdue Botany and
Plant Pathology
Stephen C. Weller
Bruce P. Bordelon
B. Rosie Lerner
Purdue Horticultureand LandscapeArchitecture

Purdue Botany and
Plant Pathology
www.ag.purdue.edu/BTNY

Purdue Horticultureand LandscapeArchitecture

Introduction
The impending approval and use of soybean
varieties that are tolerant of the herbicides
2,4-D and dicamba has been generatingsome conversation and debate.
Many groups and individuals — including
weed scientists, agronomic crop growers,
and specialty crop growers — are concerned
about 2,4-D- and dicamba-resistant crops.
They say such crops are unnecessary,
will make farmers more dependent on
the intellectual property held by large
corporations, will injure nontarget crops
sensitive to 2,4-D and dicamba, and will
accelerate the evolution of herbicide
resistance in weeds.
Others argue that 2,4-D and dicamba havebeen used on millions of acres since the1960s and has not resulted in widespread
damage, so using them on tolerant crops
should not concern growers of high-valuehorticulture crops.
It is important to note that there is no
unified opinion on this topic among weed
scientists or agronomic crop growers. This

www.ag.purdue.edu/HLAE
XTENSIONAGRICULTURE

LOCAL FACESCOUNTLESS CONNECTIONS

publication shares the perspective of somePurdue University scientists on the subjectof managing weeds in crops, explains why
2,4-D- and dicamba-tolerant crops weredeveloped, and discusses some of theconcerns surrounding the short- andlong-term effects of this technology.

Background on Weed
Management andCurrent Problems
Since they were introduced by Monsantoin 1996, genetically engineered Roundup
Ready® (RR) crops revolutionized weed
management and no-till practices inagronomic cropping systems. RR crops
were resistant to the herbicide glyphosate,
which meant that producers could apply thisone herbicide postemergence during thecrop season and achieve excellent, broadspectrum weed control. RR soybean was
introduced in the United States in 1996
followed shortly thereafter by RR cotton and
RR corn. Additional crops (including canolaand sugar beet) have also been released.

1-888-EXT-INFO

WWW.EXTENSION.PURDUE.EDU

2ID-453-W • 2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops — Some Facts to Consider
Weed management in RR crops has been excellent
and has given agricultural producers simpler, lessexpensive weed control with glyphosate-basedherbicides. However, after countless glyphosate
applications over many years and many millions ofacres, there has been the widespread development ofweed populations that are resistant to glyphosate.
The first problem weed known to develop
glyphosate resistance since the introduction of RR
technology was marestail (horseweed). Today, there
are 22 weeds worldwide reported to be resistant toglyphosate. In Indiana, marestail, giant ragweed,
and waterhemp are three problem weeds that havedocumented glyphosate resistance. Several otherweeds are suspected to have developed resistance.
The Purdue Extension Glyphosate, Weeds, and Crops
publication series (available from the Education
Store, www.the-education-store.com) documents
several glyphosate-resistant weeds and recommends
management practices.
The existence of glyphosate-resistant weeds
requires producers to use additional herbicide tools
and cultural practices to effectively manage theweeds. These additional practices add cost to the
production system. Often, there are no effective
herbicides that are easily available for some crops, or
it is not desirable or possible to use more intensive
tillage on large acreages. The presence of glyphosateresistant weeds imperils the long-term sustainabilityof the RR system unless producers practice more
integrated weed management that relies less on thesole use of glyphosate.

New Weed Management Approaches
In response to the evolution of glyphosate-resistantweeds, agricultural chemical companies havebeen investigating new methods of weed control.
They have been developing new herbicides or(more commonly) using genetic engineering
to obtain crop plants that are resistant to otherherbicides. Developing new herbicides is difficult.
To our knowledge, no university in the country
is evaluating any new herbicide active ingredient.
In fact, the crop protection industry has notcommercialized an herbicide with a new mode ofaction in at least 10 years.
PURDUE EXTENSION

1-888-EXT-INFO

Companies are searching for new active ingredients,
but the cost of developing them and the limited
potential for economic return have made it difficult
to bring new products to market. Part of this isdue to the fact that glyphosate has dominated theherbicide market since the introduction of RR crops
in 1996. Furthermore, with no new herbicide modesof action on the horizon and herbicide-resistantweed populations on the rise in every state thatgrows corn and soybeans, there are few tools left toprotect crop yields from weed infestations on large
monocultures.
The same technology that allowed glyphosate to
be used on crops provides the ability to introduce
herbicide tolerance traits into crops, thereby
allowing existing herbicides to be used in thatnew crop. So, companies have taken advantageof this technology to provide a solution to weed
control problems. This provides “unique” tools for
managing our current list of herbicide-resistantweeds.
Companies decided to introduce 2,4-D and dicamba
resistance into crops for fairly straightforward
reasons. First, these herbicide chemistries haveshown excellent resilience and few herbicideresistant weeds have occurred after more than
50 years of use. Second, these herbicides provide
excellent control of glyphosate-resistant broadleaf
weeds such as marestail, giant ragweed, common
waterhemp, and other broadleaf weeds.

Developments in
Herbicide-resistant Crops
Two major companies have developed cropping
systems with 2,4-D and dicamba herbicide
resistance: Dow AgroSciences and MonsantoCompany. Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto havetaken proactive steps to address concerns of offtarget movement by developing new formulations
that, according to product labels and technicaluse guidelines for seed products, will require new
application methods. If used, these methods canminimize, if not eliminate, off-target movement. The
following are brief summaries of each system.

WWW.EXTENSION.PURDUE.EDU

3ID-453-W • 2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops — Some Facts to Consider
Dow AgroSciences Technology
Dow AgroSciences calls their 2,4-D-resistanttechnology the Enlist™ Weed Control System incorn, soybean, and cotton. This technology became
possible when the company inserted genes into
high-acreage agronomic crops that allow theplants to metabolize 2,4-D. Dow AgroSciences also
developed a new Enlist Duo™ herbicide that contains
glyphosate and a new formulation of 2,4-D: choline.
The herbicide features what Dow AgroSciences calls
Colex-D™ Technology. The new choline formulation
provides ultra-low volatility, minimized potential for
drift, lower odor, and better handling characteristics
than commercially available 2,4-D amine or ester
formulations.

Monsanto and BASF are developing application
programs, enhancing dicamba formulations, andcreating product stewardship programs that aim tominimize the risk of off-target movement. Using
nonapproved dicamba formulations with higher
volatility characteristics will not be allowed orrecommended by Monsanto.
Monsanto has communicated several requiredparts of the anticipated stewardship program to
be included on the EPA label of new dicamba
formulations. Proposed application requirements
include:• Using application technologies that produce very
coarse to ultra coarse droplets (and eliminate finespray particles).

The drift potential of any 2,4-D formulation
depends on using nozzles that reduce driftablefines (droplets less than 200 microns). Proprietarycomponents in the Colex-DTM formulation will
reduce the amount of driftable fines.

• Applying herbicides only when wind speeds areless than 10 MPH.

All EnlistTM crops will have traits that make themtolerant to 2,4-D as well as glyphosate. EnlistTM
corn will also have tolerance to the “-fop” grassherbicides that contain quizalofop (such as Targa®
and Assure®). EnlistTM soybean, cotton, and corn
will also be resistant to glufosinate.

• Requiring buffers between application sites andsensitive species.

• Warning against applications when conditions arefavorable for temperature inversions.

Final application requirements and buffer zones are
not finalized and will be determined with the aid ofvalid research results and input from the appropriate
regulatory authorities.

Depending on regulatory approval, these crops arebeing targeted for commercial sale in 2013 for corn,2014 for soybean, and 2015 for cotton.

Monsanto Technology
Monsanto is developing crops after discovering agene that allows plants to metabolize dicamba. Their
Roundup Ready Plus Xtend System® will allow
applicators to spray glyphosate and dicamba overtolerant crops.
Monsanto is collaborating with BASF to address
dicamba’s potential to injure off-target vegetation
through drift or volatilization. The danger for
drift is an ever-present concern for any herbicide
application and a major concern for all crops. There
have been many cases of dicamba drift over the past
20 years, and many people have worried that thewidespread use of dicamba-resistant corn, soybean,
and cotton could increase off-target movement of
dicamba.
PURDUE EXTENSION

1-888-EXT-INFO

The plants in this soybean field have been injured by a growth regulator
herbicide.

WWW.EXTENSION.PURDUE.EDU

4ID-453-W • 2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops — Some Facts to Consider
Monsanto is performing extensive work to develop
dicamba-resistant soybean, corn, and cotton.
Cotton will be tolerant to glyphosate, dicamba, andglufosinate. The target dates for dicamba-resistantcrops depends on regulatory approval, but the mostcurrent estimates say they will be available for 2015.

Logic for this Technology
The logic for these technologies is that traits forcrop resistance to 2,4-D or dicamba, when stacked
with other herbicide resistance traits will reduce therisk of crop injury often associated with pre-plant
2,4-D or dicamba applications. They’ll also improve
control of difficult and resistant weeds in no-tilland conventional systems any time from preplant
into the growing season. The technologies will offer
growers flexibility to control weeds, allow them tocontinue using reduced tillage practices, and will
help reduce the risk of selecting for glyphosateresistant weeds.
Both technologies will include the use ofpreemergence soil residual herbicides andpostemergence herbicides. The goal is to effectively
limit the potential for weeds to develop herbicide
resistance, which would make the new herbicidetolerant crop technologies more sustainable.

Concerns About Off-site Movement
Concerns exist because the most common drift
complaint in the spring consists of preplant
burndown herbicides used for no-till corn andsoybeans that have injured ornamental plants. The
herbicides involved in these complaints almost
always include one or more of the following: 2,4D, glyphosate, atrazine, acetochlor, or paraquat.
Growers of crops or plants that are sensitive to theseherbicides, rural homeowners, and those concerned
about maintaining wild habitats for pollinators
are concerned that widespread use of 2,4-D anddicamba will have detrimental effects on sensitiveplants. These concerns exist despite the fact thatboth herbicides have been used postemergence formore than 40 years (dicamba) and 60 years (2,4-D)
in many different crops and are still widely used
today.

PURDUE EXTENSION

1-888-EXT-INFO

The main concern about these technologies is that
off-site movement via particle drift or volatility
will damage sensitive crops (including agronomic
crops that are not resistant to 2,4-D or dicamba),
specialty crops (such as tomato, grape, and melons),
and nursery plantings. There is also concern thatthese technologies will injure home gardens andlandscapes.
Another major concern is that once these crops
become commercialized, the acreage sprayed with
2,4-D and dicamba would increase to encompass
the majority of agronomic acres in the United States.
Since much of this acreage could be sprayed two or
three times each growing season, some argue that it
greatly increases the potential for off-site movement— even if most applications occur under the best of
conditions — and for weeds to develop resistance to
2,4-D or dicamba.
The authors definitely appreciate these concerns,
so the rest of this publication addresses issues that
affect off-site movement.

Factors Affecting Off-site Movement
Understanding off-site movement potential involves
specific knowledge of the herbicide’s chemicaland physical properties that can influence off-site
movement. It is important to know the differences
between drift and volatility.

Drift
Drift is the physical movement of spray particles
by wind after the particles leave the sprayer andbefore they reach the intended target. Drift occurs
when spray applications occur in unfavorable
weather conditions, but most commonly happens
when windy conditions are combined with poor
application techniques. One of these poor application
techniques is using spray nozzles that produce
small droplets (less than 200 microns). These small
droplets are light and easily carried by wind.
Drift is a major concern with all chemicals but inreality, application technology and restrictions about
applying herbicides during adverse environmental
conditions, when properly followed, greatly reduce
this problem.
WWW.EXTENSION.PURDUE.EDU

5

ID-453-W • 2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops — Some Facts to Consider
Volatility
Volatility is much different than drift. Volatility is
the movement of the gaseous form of the herbicide
after it has been deposited on its intended target as aliquid. After deposition, the herbicide changes froma liquid to a gaseous form, and the gaseous form
moves off the target with wind currents.
Volatilization involves a phase change in which aliquid or solid phase may be transformed into vapor
by rising temperatures or drops in external pressure.
The tendency of an organic substance to volatilize
is expressed by its vapor pressure — more volatilecompounds have higher vapor pressure values.
An herbicide’s volatility is influenced by manyfactors, including its vapor pressure, concentration,and rate of transport to the surface of the leaf orsoil. Other factors influence volatility including
the temperature of the air, leaf, or soil; the watercontent of leaf or soil surface; and the velocityof air movement above the surface of the leaf orsoil. Reducing the water content on the leaf or soil
surface can reduce volatility by increasing sites foradsorption. Conversely, water can assist volatility
through “wicking,” which is an upward movement
effect in which compounds are transported to thesoil surface as water moves upward in the soil profile
due to water evaporating at the soil surface.

Herbicides like Treflan® (which are still popular)
have a fairly high vapor pressure so they must be
incorporated in the soil to trap the herbicide in thesoil matrix. Command® was somewhat infamousfor off-site movement in the late 1980s becauseof its high vapor pressure, but refinements in its
formulation eliminated this concern. It is important
to note that most herbicides introduced today havelower volatility formulations that have reduced offsite movement concerns.
The big concern with 2,4-D and dicamba is thatvolatility and drift problems still exist. The known
volatility problems of certain 2,4-D and dicamba
formulations are also well documented and arebeing addressed by both companies through thedevelopment of newer, lower volatility formulations.
However, a concern is that low-cost, genericformulations of both 2,4-D and dicamba are stillreadily available and growers may turn to these
options if economics favor a lower application cost.

The distribution of a chemical between water andair is an expression of Henry’s Law. Without going
into confusing detail, Henry’s Law accounts forthe concentration of the pesticide in water and air
along with the influence of temperature, herbicide
solubility, molecular weight, and (most importantly)
its vapor pressure. If an herbicide has a vapor
pressure that allows a greater proportion of it to bepresent in air, that chemical more readily goes froma liquid to a gas and can move away from its target
to a nontarget plant. This is a situation to avoid,and the herbicide industry has developed newer
chemistries that have vapor pressures that are notconducive to volatilization.

PURDUE EXTENSION

1-888-EXT-INFO

WWW.EXTENSION.PURDUE.EDU

6ID-453-W • 2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops — Some Facts to Consider

Methods of Minimizing
Off-site Movement
As mentioned above, volatility and drift are
different factors that affect the off-site movement of
herbicides. Spray operators can control drift, andmanufacturers have made substantial improvements
to spray nozzle technology in recent years. A recent
paper presented at the Weed Science Society ofAmerica (WSSA) meeting showed that driftable
spray droplets can be reduced from 30 percent
down to 2 percent by simply upgrading the nozzle
technology in current spray setups. This type of
information will be important for all spray operators
to consider as they spray near sensitive vegetation.
However, the most important thing operators can
do to minimize drift is to spray only when winds are
not blowing toward sensitive vegetation.
On the other hand, operators cannot control
volatility except by choosing nonvolatile or lowvolatile formulations. Volatility occurs after sprayis deposited on the target, when the herbicide
turns into a vapor and moves away from the target.
Operators can control volatility only if they do not
spray formulations that have high vapor pressures.
Both Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto aredeveloping application techniques that aim tominimize these concerns. They are taking measuresthat include developing herbicide formulations
that are less volatile and have improved handlingcharacteristics, creating better spray nozzle
technology, and improving overall application
requirements.
When the new cropping technologies becomecommercially available, it will be important forusers to apply the new herbicide formulations
responsibly and in ways that minimize volatility
concerns and physical drift. Purdue weed scientists
believe operators can minimize drift by using
proper sprayer technology. Purdue weed scientists
will need to educate applicators about the factors(both human and environmental) that increase thepotential for off-site herbicide movement.
Another tool is the Purdue-based Driftwatch
program (www.driftwatch.org), a voluntary sensitive
crop reporting system that notifies farmers and

PURDUE EXTENSION

1-888-EXT-INFO

pesticide applicators about locations where spray
drift may be a concern. We feel that more programs
like Driftwatch will become common as more
information becomes available about how best to
use these herbicide-resistant crops while avoiding
potential damage from herbicide use.
The next few years will be interesting as herbicidetolerant crop technology is developed, approved forrelease, labeled, and used. Everyone will be watching
how herbicides are used and applied and how theissues related to off-site movement are addressed.
There is much work that still needs to be done toensure that when these herbicide-tolerant crop
systems are commercially available they are effective
and economical, manage weeds, and do not damage
nontarget plants.

Summary• We recognize the need to manage glyphosateresistant weeds for the sustainability of Roundup
Ready® agronomic cropping systems, which
provide economical means to protect crop yields.
• The introduction of 2,4-D- and dicamba-resistantcrops represents a new technology that can help
maintain near-term productivity in our efficient,
simplified monoculture systems of commodity
crops. However, we must not become overly reliant
on this technology as the only solution to manage
weeds and maintain high crop productivity. A
diversified approach to weed management mustnot be lost. The most durable and productive weed
management system must integrate many tools,
including genetic, cultural, nonchemical, andchemical methods.
• We recognize the potential risks that the increased
use of growth regulator herbicides (2,4-D anddicamba) can have near sensitive crops, organic
farms, and rural home gardens and landscapes.
• We also note that it is not only 2,4-D- anddicamba-sensitive crops (such as vegetables,
trees, and ornamentals) that are threatened, butthat 2,4-D-resistant crops may be vulnerable todicamba, and dicamba-resistant crops may bevulnerable to 2,4-D.

WWW.EXTENSION.PURDUE.EDU

7

ID-453-W • 2,4-D- and Dicamba-tolerant Crops — Some Facts to Consider• We recognize the potential risk that growth
regulator herbicides (2,4-D and dicamba) may
have if they are applied later in the growing season
than they are currently.

• We encourage more stringent label restrictions onallowable wind application conditions, (currently
at 15 mph) and to restrict any application whenwinds are blowing toward sensitive crops or
homes. Wind restrictions should be much
lower (10 mph), and labels should specify thatapplications should also be avoided undertemperature inversion conditions.

• Dow AgroSciences is developing a low-volatilecholine formulation of 2,4-D, drift management
solutions, and product stewardship programs as
part of their Colex-D™ Technology. Monsantoand BASF are developing application programs,enhanced/improved dicamba formulations,and product stewardship programs intended
to minimize the risk of off-target movement.
However, concern remains that some older, morevolatile formulations are slated to receive “label
support,” not just the newly developed formula

Reference in this publication to any specificcommercial product, process, or service, or
the use of any trade, firm, or corporation
name is for general informational purposes
only and does not constitute an endorsement,
recommendation, or certification of any kindby Purdue University. Individuals using suchproducts assume responsibility for their use
in accordance with current directions of the
manufacturer.

• We encourage all growers of sensitive crops
and cropping areas to register their fields with
Driftwatch (www.driftwatch.org) so that pesticide
applicators will be aware of potential problems.
However, we do not believe the onus should
be solely on these growers. The manufacturersof herbicide-resistant crop technologies must
carefully monitor the situation after they release
these crops, and they should document any and all
drift cases.
• We strongly recommend that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency restrict, bylabel, the use of higher volatile formulations on
any Roundup Ready® crops and that recordkeeping requirements (similar to those in place
for restricted use (RUP) products) makes sense tohelp in any investigation of off-target movement.
• It is critical that registering companies develop
marketing plans that tie technology purchases tothe use of the newly developed formulations to
reduce the economic risk of generic formulation
use that would lead to unacceptable risk ofpotential volatility exposures.

These tomato plants have been injured by a growth regulator herbicide.

Nov. 2012
It is the policy of the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service that all persons have equal opportunity and access to its educational programs, services, activities, andfacilities without regard to race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, disability or status as a veteran.
Purdue University is an Affirmative Action institution. This material may be available in alternative formats.

LOCAL FACESEXTENSIONAGRICULTURE
1-888-EXT-INFO•

COUNTLESS CONNECTIONS
www.extension.purdue.edu

Order or download materials from
Purdue Extension • The Education Store
www.the-education-store.com