Glyphosate Response to Calcium, Ethoxylated Amine Surfactant, and Ammonium

Sulfate
Author(s): CHRISTIAN GAUVRIT
Source: Weed Technology, 17(4):799-804.
Published By: Weed Science Society of America
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0799:GRTCEA]2.0.CO;2
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1614/0890-037X%282003%29017%5B0799%3AGRTCEA
%5D2.0.CO%3B2

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and
environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published
by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries
or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research
libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Weed Technology. 2003. Volume 17:799–804

Glyphosate Response to Calcium, Ethoxylated Amine Surfactant, and

Ammonium Sulfate1

CHRISTIAN GAUVRIT2

Abstract: Calcium ion in the spray water can reduce glyphosate efficacy. Ammonium sulfate (AMS)
is commonly added to the spray tank to overcome the reduced efficacy. However, it is sometimes
claimed that ethoxylated tallow amine surfactant (EA) is also efficacious, provided that calcium
concentration is moderate (5 5 mM, 200 ppm). On response curves of ‘Plaisant’ barley treated with
glyphosate, the presence of calcium ion increased the glyphosate dose needed to obtain 50% (ED50)
barley growth reduction. The addition of AMS to the spray tank overcame the antagonistic effect of
the calcium ion and restored glyphosate efficacy. EA was less effective than AMS at 5 or 10 mM
calcium ion concentration as measured by ED50. However, at 90% growth reduction (ED90), EA was
more effective than AMS at the 5 mM calcium ion concentration but less effective at the 10 mM
concentration. Hence, at a moderate (5 5 mM) calcium concentration, EA would be an effective
adjuvant. Calcium ion decreased the foliar uptake of glyphosate but did not affect the rate of uptake.
AMS but not EA restored foliar uptake to values observed without calcium ion. EA increased spray
retention, and this probably accounted for the increased glyphosate efficacy at low calcium concen-
tration.
Nomenclature: Glyphosate; barley, Hordeum vulgare L.
Additional index words: Ammonium sulfate, bioassay, dose–response curve, ethoxylated tallow
amine, foliar uptake, spray retention.
Abbreviations: AMS, ammonium sulfate; EA, ethoxylated tallow amine; SE, standard error.

INTRODUCTION as compared with 720–1,080 g ae/ha against dicotyle-

Glyphosate efficacy has long been known to be di-
minished by calcium ion in the spray water (Sandberg
et al. 1978; Stahlman and Phillips 1979). This reduced
efficacy was attributed to the formation of a complex or
a salt between glyphosate and calcium ion (Shea and
Tupy 1984). This complex or salt is poorly absorbed by
plants (Nilsson 1985); in addition, Nalewaja et al. (1992)
suggested that glyphosate is entrapped in a solid residue
on the leaf surface. The stoichiometry of the glyphosate–
calcium association was shown to be 1:1 (de Ruiter et
al. 2002; Gauvrit et al. 2000, 2001), as suggested by
Nalewaja et al. (1996). Under conditions in France cal-
cium concentration is rarely higher than 5 mM (Blondlot
et al. 1999). Its influence can be observed in presowing
control of volunteer barley or wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.), where low doses can be used, typically 360 g ae/ha,
1
Received for publication November 11, 2002, and in revised form March
18, 2003.
2
Research Scientist, Laboratoire de Malherbologie et Agronomie, Institut
National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR Biologie et Gestion des Ad-
ventices, BP 86510, F-21065 Dijon Cedex, France. Corresponding author’s E-
mail: gauvrit@dijon.inra.fr.
donous weeds (Blondlot et al. 2000).
The efficacy of glyphosate in the presence of calcium
ion can be improved with ammonium sulfate (AMS)
(Nalewaja and Matysiak 1991), although with species
such as kochia [Kochia scoparia (L.) Shrad.] and soy-
bean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] a surfactant is also needed
(Nalewaja and Matysiak 1992). The minimum AMS–
calcium ion molar ratio required to overcome inhibition
by calcium ion was 3 (Nalewaja and Matysiak 1993a).
The protective action of AMS is thought to result from
the low water solubility of calcium sulfate, allowing it
to precipitate before calcium–glyphosate during droplet
drying (Nalewaja and Matysiak 1993b). An interaction
between ammonium ion and glyphosate may also play a
part in this action (Thelen et al. 1995).
In practice, AMS is used to overcome the negative
influence of calcium ion. However, ethoxylated tallow
amine (EA) is also recommended when calcium ion con-
centration is lower than 5 mM (Blondlot et al. 1999).
Although validated by field experiments, this recommen-
dation is difficult to rationalize on the basis of the mode
of action of AMS put forward by Nalewaja and Matysiak
(1993b). Because it is positively charged in solution, EA

799
 GAUVRIT: GLYPHOSATE RESPONSE TO CALCIUM, EA, AND AMS
does not interact with calcium ion. To explain these ob-
servations, we examined the influence of various calci-
um concentrations on glyphosate efficacy in the presence
of AMS and EA. We also studied spray retention and
foliar uptake under these conditions. Barley was chosen
because glyphosate at low doses is used to control it
before seeding (Blondlot et al. 2000).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Bioassays. Seeds of barley were sown in 1.5-L pots
filled with a mixture of sand, clay-loam soil and peat (1:
1:1, v/v/v). They were grown under controlled condi-
tions (17–12 C; 60–80% relative humidity; light–dark,
fluorescent lamps delivering 220 mmol photon/m2/s pho-
tosynthetically active radiation, 16-h photoperiod).
Plants were watered daily with a nutrient solution con-
taining all necessary macro- and micronutrients. Before
spraying, plants were thinned to 10 per pot. Plants were
treated with glyphosate at the two-leaf stage using an
indoor track sprayer with a movable boom equipped with
two flat-fan 11004 nozzles3 delivering 200 L/ha at 300
kPa. Glyphosate4 doses ranged from 90 to 3,600 g ae/ha
and were chosen so as to be adequately spaced on the
response curves of barley. When present, CaCl25 was 2.5,
5 or 10 mM (100 to 400 ppm), AMS5 concentration was
three times higher than CaCl2 (7.5, 15, or 30 mM, re-
spectively), and EA,6 with 15 ethylene oxide moles, was
0.5%. Three replicates were used for the treated plants
and six for the control group. Treated plants and controls
were randomized in the growth chamber. All plants were
harvested 14 d after treatment. An observation corre-
sponded to the dry biomass of 10 plants per pot. The
experiments were repeated over time, twice with 2.5 mM
CaCl2 and three times with 5 and 10 mM CaCl2 (exper-
iments numbered 1 to 3 and 4 to 6, respectively, for the
two latter concentrations).
The results of an experiment comprising different
treatments applied on the same day were analyzed using
nonlinear regression.7 After variance stabilization (Box
3
Albuz, Céramiques Techniques Desmarquest, Rue de l’industrie, 27000
Evreux, France.
4
Roundupt and Roundup Bioforcet, both 360 g/L ae, Monsanto, Europarc
du Chêne, 1, Rue Jacques Monod, 69673 Bron Cedex, France. Designated
Formulation A and Formulation B, respectively. Formulation A contains 155
g/L EA (CAS number 61791-26-2), Formulation B contains 160 g/L surfac-
tant of undisclosed nature (http://www.uipp.org/QuickFDS/Monsanto).
5
Analytical grade, Prolabo, 12 Rue Pelée, 75011 Paris, France.
6
Génamin T 200 BMt, 732 g/L EA (CAS number 61791-26-2, http://
www.uipp.org/QuickFDS/Monsanto), Monsanto, Europarc du Chêne, 1, Rue
Jacques Monod, 69673 Bron Cedex, France.
7
Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS) software. Ver. 8. SAS Institute, Inc.,
Box 8000, SAS Circle, Cary, NC 27513.
800
and Cox 1964), all the observed data were simultaneous-
ly fitted using the log-logistic model
D2C
Wi j 5 C 1 [1]
1 2
bi
xi j
11
ED50 i
where Wij denotes the dry matter at the jth dose of gly-
phosate in treatment i; D and C denote the upper and
lower limits of dry matter at zero and very large doses
of glyphosate; ED50i and ED90i denote the doses of gly-
phosate required to reduce dry matter by 50 and 90%,
respectively, between the upper and lower limits in treat-
ment i; and bi is proportional to the slope of the curve
around ED50i. The validity of the model and the com-
parisons between the parameters were made using lack-
of-fit F tests at the 0.05% level of significance (Kudsk
and Streibig 1993). No significant lack of fit was de-
tected when model 1 was tested in experiments 1 to 6
(Table 1); hence, the model was acceptable.
Foliar Uptake. Barley plants were grown in 0.1-L pots
filled with vermiculite (one plant per pot), under the
same controlled conditions as in the bioassays. The treat-
ment solutions consisted of 14.2 mM commercial gly-
phosate (formulation A), corresponding to 360 g ae/ha
applied at 150 L/ha. CaCl2 concentration was 2.5 mM in
experiments 7 and 8; 5 mM in experiment 9; and 10 mM
in experiments 10 to 12. AMS concentration was three
times higher than CaCl2, and EA was 0.5%. 14C-gly-
phosate8 (273.8 MBq/mmol, 95% radiochemical purity)
was added to all glyphosate preparations so as to give a
radioactivity concentration of 60–70 Bq/ml. Five 0.9-ml
(approximately) droplets were deposited on the upper
third of the first leaf of barley plants at the two-leaf stage
(four replicates). After 6, 24, 48, 72, 144, and 192 h the
deposits were washed with 0.5 ml of acetone and water
(1:1 v/v) and then with 0.5 ml chloroform, and the ra-
dioactivity in the washes was measured by scintillation
counting.9 In experiments where calcium ion was pre-
sent, washing the deposits only with water containing a
surfactant or with other polar solutions led to poor re-
coveries of nonpenetrated 14C-glyphosate. It was con-
firmed that the chloroform wash recovered more than
96% of nonpenetrated 14C-glyphosate, although glyphos-
ate and its calcium salts or chelate are not soluble in
chloroform (Franz et al. 1997). Presumably, the chloro-
form dissolved the wax on which 14C-glyphosate and its
salts or chelate were present (Gauvrit et al. 2001). To
8
Amersham, 12 Avenue des Tropiques, 91944 Les Ullis, France.
9
Wallac, 16 Avenue du Québec, 91945 Courtaboeuf, France.
Volume 17, Issue 4 (October–December) 2003
 WEED TECHNOLOGY

Table 1. Estimated parametersa (model 1) for the response curves of barleyb treated with glyphosate in the presence of various CaCl2 concentrations and
adjuvants.
Glyphosate formulation CaCl2 Addition to glyphosate bc ED50c ED90c

mM g ae/ha
A (experiment 1) 5 None or CaCl2 1 AMS 1.8 (0.3) 212 (33) 697 (130)
CaCl2 3.0 (0.5) 421 (69) 884 (126)
CaCl2 1 EA 3.0 (0.5) 280 (42) 587 (92)
B (experiment 2) 5 None or CaCl2 1 AMS 1.3 (0.2) 176 (21) 951 (119)
CaCl2 2.6 (0.3) 430 (30) 1,169 (150)
CaCl2 1 EA 2.6 (0.3) 294 (21) 678 (78)
B (experiment 3) 5 None or CaCl2 1 AMS 1.5 (0.3) 336 (50) 1,485 (339)
CaCl2 3.1 (0.8) 562 (98) 1,604 (293)
CaCl2 1 EA 3.1 (0.8) 429 (99) 871 (163)
A (experiments 4 and 5) 10 None or CaCl2 1 AMS 1.9 (0.4) 157 (31) 499 (173)
CaCl2 3.6 (0.6) 381 (73) 701 (238)
CaCl2 1 EA 3.2 (0.7) 287 (67) 570 (205)
A (experiment 6) 10 None or CaCl2 1 AMS 2.1 (0.3) 66 (9) 189 (27)
CaCl2 3.6 (0.5) 245 (35) 451 (96)
CaCl2 1 EA 3.3 (0.3) 194 (30) 378 (75)

a
D and C denote the upper and lower limits of dry matter at zero and at very large doses of glyphosate; ED50 and ED90 denote the doses of glyphosate
required to reduce dry matter by 50 and 90%, respectively, between the upper and lower limits; and b is proportional to the slope of the curve around ED50.
b
Shoot dry weight. C and D (confidence interval) (mg) were: experiment 1, 431 (24) and 2,481 (251); experiment 2, 569 (42) and 2,313 (121); experiment
3, 469 (56) and 1,953 (123); pooled experiments 4 and 5, 485 (41) and 1,933 (123); experiment 6, 405 (54) and 1,412 (60), respectively.
c
Figures in parentheses are the approximate confidence intervals (P 5 0.05).

determine the radioactivity that had penetrated into the
plant tissues, whole plants were combusted,10 and the
radioactivity of the resulting CO2 was determined by
scintillation counting. The amount of radiolabel depos-
ited was checked for each solution by combusting a
treated leaf excised immediately after deposition (three
replicates). The radioactivity recovered 6 standard error
(SE) calculated relative to these checks was 93611%.
The uptake data were analyzed by nonlinear regres-
sion using the model
Spray Retention. Barley plants were grown as in the
foliar uptake experiments. They were sprayed at the two-
leaf stage in the same way as in the bioassays with prep-
arations containing 100 mg/L Na-fluorescein.5 After the
spray had dried on the foliage, the plants were cut at
ground level and shaken for 30 s in 50 ml of 5 mM
NaOH. Readings were made with a spectrofluorimeter11
at 490/510 nm. Plants were then placed at 80 C for 24
h, and dry matter was weighed. Ten replications with
four plants each were used for each treatment, and the
experiment was repeated over time.

[
Ui 5 Umax 1 2 exp log 0.5 31
ti 2 t0
t1/2 2 t0 2 ]
where Ui denotes foliar uptake (percent of applied label)
after the ith time (t). Umax is uptake after a very long
time, t1/2 is the time required to reach half Umax, and t0
is the lag-time before onset of glyphosate uptake. The
data from experiments 7 and 8 and experiments 10, 11,
and 12 were pooled because variances were similar. At-
tempts were made to analyze all kinetics from one ex-
periment simultaneously, as in the bioassays. However,
model 2 was acceptable (P 5 0.05) only in experiments
7, 9, and 11 but not in pooled experiments 7 and 8 and
in pooled experiments 10, 11, and 12. Hence, the fitted
curves were analyzed separately, and the validity of the
nonlinear regression was determined from the R2 value.
10
Harvey OX500 oxidizer, Perkin Elmer, 16 Avenue du Québec, 91945
Courtaboeuf, France.
[2]
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Bioassays. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the influence of
CaCl2, CaCl2 plus AMS, and CaCl2 plus EA on the re-
sponse of barley plants treated with glyphosate. As pre-
viously observed (Gauvrit et al. 2000, 2001), in all ex-
periments CaCl2 increased ED50 values, indicating a de-
crease in glyphosate efficacy. ED50 increase ranged from
1.7 to 2.4 at 5 mM; i.e., 1.7 to 2.4 times more glyphosate
was needed to obtain the ED50 level. With 10 mM CaCl2,
ED50 increase ranged from 2.4 to 3.7. However, CaCl2
increased ED90 to a lesser extent (1.1- to 1.3-fold at 5
mM and 1.4- to 2.4-fold at 10 mM), and as a result the
slope of the response curve was higher in its presence.
This is a consequence of calcium ion inactivating stoi-
11
Spectrofluo JY3D, Jobin et Yvon, 16–18 Rue du canal, 91160 Longju-
meau, France.

Volume 17, Issue 4 (October–December) 2003 801

 GAUVRIT: GLYPHOSATE RESPONSE TO CALCIUM, EA, AND AMS
Figure 1. Shoot dry weight and response curves of barley plants treated
with glyphosate in the presence of calcium and various additives. Results
are from experiments 1 (CaCl2 5 5 mM) and 5 (CaCl2 5 10 mM) (Table
1). Model 1 (Y 5 C 1 (D 2 C)/(1 1 (X/ED50)b)) was used for the fitted
curves. ——, glyphosate and glyphosate plus CaCl2 plus AMS; - - -, gly-
phosate plus CaCl2; . . . , glyphosate plus CaCl2 plus EA.
chiometric amounts of glyphosate (Gauvrit et al. 2001).
AMS fully overcame the antagonistic effects of calcium
on glyphosate activity. This is evident from b parameter
estimates and ED50 values, which did not differ between
the equations as indicated by the lack-of-fit F test. This
is in agreement with previous findings of Nalewaja and
Matysiak (1993b). The effect of AMS depended on gly-
phosate dose; for example, in experiment 1 the increase
in efficacy was 99% at ED50, as compared with 27% at
ED90. This dependence can be seen in Figure 1 from the
nonparallelism of the response curves with CaCl2 and
with CaCl2 plus AMS.
EA partially overcame calcium antagonism. It was
more effective than AMS at 5 mM calcium ion concen-
tration as measured by ED90. However, EA was less ef-
fective than AMS at 5 or 10 mM calcium ion concen-
tration as measured by ED50 and at 10 mM concentration
as measured by ED90. The slopes of the response curves
with CaCl2 and with CaCl2 plus EA were similar, and as
a consequence, the curves appear parallel. This means
that the increase in efficacy brought about by EA was
constant at all doses.
802
Figure 2. Foliar uptake of 14C-glyphosate into barley leaves in the presence
of calcium and various additives: observed means (symbols) and fitted curves.
Results are from Table 2. Model 2 (Y 5 Umax 3 (1 2 exp(log0.5 3 (X 2
t0)/(t1/2 2 t0)))) was used for the fitted curves. ——, glyphosate; - - -, gly-
phosate plus CaCl2; -·-·-, glyphosate plus CaCl2 plus AMS; . . . , glyphosate
plus CaCl2 plus EA.
In the presence of 5 mM CaCl2, ED50 values were
lower with AMS than with EA, whereas the reverse was
true for ED90 values (Table 1). As a result, the two re-
sponse curves intersected as illustrated for experiment 1
in Figure 1. This was also observed with 2.5 mM CaCl2
(not shown). This indicates that at low efficacies (for
example around ED50), AMS was better in overcoming
the antagonistic effect of calcium ion than EA, whereas
the reverse was true at high efficacies (for example
around ED90). Because advice to farmers is aimed at high
efficacy, our results are in agreement with the field ob-
servations that EA is a better adjuvant than AMS when
calcium ion concentration is lower than 5 mM (Blondlot
et al. 1999). By contrast, in the presence of 10 mM
CaCl2, both ED50 and ED90 were lower with AMS, and
the curves did not intersect (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Again, this is in agreement with the recommendation to
use AMS at calcium ion concentrations higher than 5
mM (Blondlot et al. 1999).
Foliar Uptake. CaCl2 did not influence t0 (lag-time be-
fore onset of glyphosate uptake) or t1/2 (time required to
reach half Umax) (Figure 2 and Table 2). However, it de-
creased Umax (uptake after a very long time) by 14, 24,
and 48% in the presence of 2.5, 5, and 10 mM CaCl2,
respectively. This is in accordance with the view that
calcium ion inactivates glyphosate by making part or all
of it unavailable for uptake (Nilsson 1985), without in-
Volume 17, Issue 4 (October–December) 2003
 WEED TECHNOLOGY

Table 2. Estimated (model 2) glyphosate uptake in time for first detection Table 3. Spray retention of glyphosate by barley plants as affected by various
(t0), and one half maximum uptake (t1/2), and maximum uptake (Umax) by additives.a
barley leaves in the presence of various CaCl2 concentrations and adjuvants.
Additives Experiment 13 Experiment 14
Addition to
CaCl2 glyphosate t0a t1/2a Umaxa R2 mL/g dry matterb
None 33.5 (3.0) 34.6 (4.4)
mM h % CaCl2a 35.3 (3.8) 43.6 (6.3)
2.5 b
None 2.7 (2.5) 18.9 (6.8) 83.4 (8.8) 0.76 EAc 50.5 (4.4) 52.1 (6.5)
CaCl2 4.2 (2.3) 20.4 (7.1) 71.6 (7.8) 0.74 CaCl2 1 EA 44.7 (9.3) 54.6 (8.6)
CaCl2 1 AMS 3.7 (2.2) 24.8 (5.6) 82.8 (7.8) 0.84
CaCl2 1 EA 4.9 (0.9) 17.4 (3.2) 71.1 (4.0) 0.92 a
CaCl2 was at 5 mM.
5 c
None 3.0 (4.0) 32.2 (6.4) 81.4 (6.4) 0.96 b
Figures in parentheses are the approximate confidence intervals (P 5
CaCl2 5.2 (2.6) 22.6 (5.1) 62.2 (4.3) 0.95 0.05).
CaCl2 1 AMS 5.2 (2.4) 17.1 (4.5) 78.2 (6.6) 0.92
CaCl2 1 EA 2.8 (1.6) 33.5 (5.5) 52.3 (3.5) 0.98
c
Abbreviation: EA, ethoxylated tallow amine surfactant.
10 d
None 3.0 (1.4) 19.4 (3.8) 83.6 (5.2) 0.85
CaCl2 2.0 (2.3) 19.3 (5.8) 43.7 (3.8) 0.73
CaCl2 1 AMS 5.3 (1.2) 13.4 (5.6) 74.4 (4.2) 0.85
CaCl2 1 EA 4.9 (0.9) 17.4 (6.4) 41.1 (3.9) 0.92 timum foliar uptake of glyphosate by barley was lower
a
Figures in parentheses are the approximate confidence intervals (P 5
than 1 g/L. Our experimental conditions were close to
0.05). those of Leaper’s (1996). First, we used a glyphosate
b
Pooled results from experiments 7 and 8. concentration of the same order of magnitude (14.2
c
Results from experiment 9. mM). Second, 155 g/L EA was present in the commer-
d
Pooled results from experiments 10, 11 and 12.
cial formulation that we used; because our treatments
corresponded to 1 L of commercial formulation applied
terfering with the uptake process itself. At all three CaCl2 at 150 L/ha, EA concentration was slightly higher than
concentrations, AMS brought back the foliar uptake of 1 g/L. Hence, our results are in agreement with Leaper’s
glyphosate to the levels observed in its absence, as de- (1996) and suggest that the increase in glyphosate effi-
termined by the values of Umax. Hence, AMS overcame cacy brought about by EA in the presence of CaCl2 can-
the antagonistic effects of CaCl2 at all concentrations. not be explained by an increase in foliar uptake.
This is in agreement with the bioassays and with pre-
vious observations (Nalewaja et al. 1996; Thelen et al. Spray Retention. The two spray retention experiments
1995). Indeed, the latter found that calcium ion plus are presented separately as the data were not homoge-
AMS increased foliar uptake as compared with glyphos- nous. Table 3 shows that 0.5% EA increased spray re-
ate applied alone. Although the calcium ion and AMS tention of glyphosate by barley plants by 51% in the
concentrations were comparable with ours, the surfactant absence of CaCl2 and by 25–27% in its presence. This
was different (ethoxylated nonylphenoxys vs. the EA
may well explain the increase in glyphosate efficacy be-
present in the commercial formulation we used) and so
cause as deduced from ED50 comparisons, it ranged from
were the plant species (wheat and kochia vs. barley). In
24 to 33% in the presence of 5 mM CaCl2.
most cases, t0 and t1/2 were not affected by the presence
These results show that EA and AMS had different
of CaCl2 plus AMS (Table 2).
actions when glyphosate was antagonized by calcium
In the presence of 5 mM CaCl2, Umax decreased by
16% whereas t1/2 increased by 48% (Figure 2 and Table ion. EA did not directly overcome the antagonism but
2). However, in the presence of 2.5 and 10 mM CaCl2, partially relieved it by increasing glyphosate efficacy to
EA had no influence on the foliar uptake of glyphosate, the same extent at all glyphosate doses, probably by in-
as determined by Umax, t0, and t1/2 values. Gaskin and creasing spray retention. By contrast, AMS fully over-
Holloway (1992) showed that EAs strongly promoted came the antagonism; i.e., it increased glyphosate effi-
the foliar uptake of glyphosate by wheat and field bean cacy to the same extent as calcium decreased it. At mod-
(Vicia faba L.). Leaper (1996) came to the same conclu- erate (5 5 mM, 200 ppm) calcium concentrations, EA
sion with rapeseed (Brassica napus oleracea L.) and bar- increased glyphosate efficacy (as measured by ED90)
ley. However, the foliar uptake of 11.8 mM glyphosate more than calcium decreased it. At a higher (10 mM,
by rapeseed did not increase when EA concentration was 400 ppm) calcium concentration, EA increased glyphos-
raised from 0.2 to 1 and 5 g/L; in barley, the increase ate efficacy less than calcium decreased it. It follows
in foliar uptake of glyphosate was slight at 0.2 to 1 g/L that, in accordance with field observations, EA was a
EA and zero from 1 to 5 g/L. It can thus be assumed more effective adjuvant than AMS at moderate calcium
that the minimum EA concentration that promoted op- concentrations.

Volume 17, Issue 4 (October–December) 2003 803

 GAUVRIT: GLYPHOSATE RESPONSE TO CALCIUM, EA, AND AMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my appreciation of the expert technical as-
sistance of Jean-Claude Gaudry and Thérèse Lucotte-
Lamrani.
LITERATURE CITED
Blondlot, A., G. Bouclet, P. Boyer, et al. 1999. Dureté de l’eau et efficacité
herbicide. Perspectives Agri. 251:60–66.
Blondlot, A., G. Citron, C. Vacher, L. Jouy, J.-L. Verdier, and B. Réal. 2000.
Glyphosate. In F. Couvreur, ed. Herbicides. Paris, France: ITCF. Pp. 236–
246.
Box, G.E.P. and D. R. Cox. 1964. An analysis of transformations. J. Roy.
Stat. Soc. 82:211–245.
de Ruiter, H., R. A. Downer, A.J.M. Uffing, T. A. Ebert, and F. R. Hall. 2002.
The influence of inorganic cations on glyphosate activity. In J. C. Muen-
inghoff, A. K. Viets, and R. A. Downer, eds. Pesticide Formulations and
Application Systems: A New Century for Agricultural Formulations.
Volume 21, ASTM STP 1414. West Conshohocken, PA: American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials. Pp. 23–36.
Franz, J. E., M. K. Mao, and J. A. Sikorski. 1997. General properties of
glyphosate and glyphosate salts. In J. E. Franz, M. K. Mao, and J. A.
Sikorski, eds. Glyphosate: A Unique and Global Herbicide. Washington,
DC: American Chemical Society. Pp. 27–64.
Gaskin, R. E. and P. J. Holloway. 1992. Some physicochemical factors influencing
foliar uptake enhancement of glyphosate-mono(isopropylammonium) by po-
lyoxyethylene surfactants. Pestic. Sci. 34:195–206.
Gauvrit, C., J.-C. Gaudry, T. Lucotte, and F. Cabanne. 2000. Evidences for a
1:1 Ca21:glyphosate association in deposit residuals on leaf surface. Proc.
Meded. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent 65/2a:77–86.
804
Gauvrit, C., J.-C. Gaudry, T. Lucotte, and F. Cabanne. 2001. Biological evi-
dences for a 1:1-Ca21:glyphosate association in deposit residuals on the
leaf surface of barley. Weed Res. 41:433–445.
Kudsk, P. and J. C. Streibig. 1993. Formulations and adjuvants. In J. C. Strei-
big and P. Kudsk, eds. Herbicides Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp.
99–116.
Leaper, C. 1996. Rational Approaches to the Design of Formulations of Gly-
phosate-Mono(isopropylammonium). Ph.D. dissertation. University of
Bristol, Bristol, UK. Pp. 6.25–6.27.
Nalewaja, J. D., B. Devilliers, and R. Matysiak. 1996. Surfactant and salt
affect glyphosate retention and absorption. Weed Res. 36:241–247.
Nalewaja, J. D. and R. Matysiak. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed
Sci. 39:622–628.
Nalewaja, J. D. and R. Matysiak. 1992. Species differ in response to adjuvants
with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 6:561–566.
Nalewaja, J. D. and R. Matysiak. 1993a. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome
glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.
Nalewaja, J. D. and R. Matysiak. 1993b. Influence of diammonium sulfate
and other salts on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Pestic. Sci. 38:77–84.
Nalewaja, J. D., R. Matysiak, and T. P. Freeman. 1992. Spray droplet residual
of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40:576–589.
Nilsson, G. 1985. Interactions between glyphosate and metals essential for
plant growth. In E. Grossbard and D. Atkinson, eds. The Herbicide Gly-
phosate. London: Butterworths. Pp. 35–47.
Sandberg, C. L., W. F. Meggitt, and D. Penner. 1978. Effect of diluent volume
and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.
Shea, P. J. and D. R. Tupy. 1984. Reversal of cation-induced reduction in
glyphosate activity with EDTA. Weed Sci. 32:802–806.
Stahlman, P. W. and W. M. Phillips. 1979. Effects of water quality and spray
volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 27:38–41.
Thelen, K. D., E. P. Jackson, and D. Penner. 1995. The basis for the hard-
water antagonism of glyphosate activity. Weed Sci. 43:541–548.
Volume 17, Issue 4 (October–December) 2003