A persistent problem was identified in pecan (Carya illinoinensis) orchards throughout southern Georgia in which pecan trees growing in rows immediately adjacent to peanut (Arachis hypogaea) fields developed hollow pecans. In-shell nut size and appearance was normal; however, the kernels failed to develop. In 2008 and 2009, research was conducted to evaluate the influence of imazapic on pecan nut development in two pecan orchards located at the University of Georgia Ponder Research Farm located near Tifton, GA. Three herbicide treatments were evaluated, including imazapic at 0.17 kg·ha−1, imazapic at 0.30 kg·ha−1, and a nontreated control. Imazapic inhibited pecan kernel production and shuck split during both years of study. In 2009, leaf potassium was reduced by the low rate of imazapic.
A large number of agronomic and horticultural crops are susceptible to injury and yield loss from drift-level exposures to synthetic auxin herbicides. A new generation of genetically modified crops including cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), field corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max), and canola (Brassica napus) with resistance to dicamba and 2,4-D herbicides has been developed to address the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds. In the few years since their commercial introduction, these technologies have been rapidly adopted. The objective of this study was to determine the potential effects of simulated, single drift events of 2,4-D and dicamba on pecan (Carya illinoinensis) trees. 2,4-D amine [3.8 lb/gal acid equivalent (a.e.)] or dicamba-Diglycolamine salt (4.0 lb/gal a.e.) were applied in 1.0%, 0.1%, and 0.01% by volume spray solutions to pecan trees in June 2013. In 2016 and 2017, 2,4-D choline (3.8 lb/gal a.e.) or dicamba-N,N-Bis-(3-aminopropyl) methylamine (5.0 lb/gal a.e.) were applied in 1.0%, 0.1%, and 0.01% by volume spray solutions to pecan trees in May. These results suggest that serious injury can occur to pecan trees receiving a drift application of 1.0% by volume dicamba or 2,4-D. This injury includes deformed foliage, dead foliage, dead limbs, and/or branches, and arrested nut development. There were no major differences in the response of pecan to either dicamba or 2,4-D at similar rates in this study. Pecan damage resulting from off-target movement of 2,4-D and dicamba at rates ≥1% by volume has the potential to cause significant injury. Yield was not negatively affected by any of the treatments, suggesting that pecan trees can compensate for the observed injury to some extent. The effect of treatments on percent kernel was variable.