Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T04:24:57.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safening grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron with growth regulator herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David W. Brown ,
Kassim Al-Khatib ,
David L. Regehr ,
Phillip W. Stahlman  and
Thomas M. Loughin
David W. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
David L. Regehr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Agriculture Research Center, Hays, KS 67601
Thomas M. Loughin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safening of metsulfuron applied with dicamba, 2,4-D, clopyralid, and fluroxypyr with and without nonionic surfactant. Greenhouse data showed that 2,4-D and dicamba, but not fluroxypyr, safened grain sorghum from metsulfuron injury. In the field study, grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron was decreased when tank mixed with 2,4-D or dicamba but not when tank mixed with clopyralid or fluroxypyr. Tank mixes of 2,4-D or dicamba with metsulfuron did not reduce ivyleaf morningglory or velvetleaf control. At 4 wk after treatment (WAT), ivyleaf morningglory was controlled 95, 84, 59, and 91%, and velvetleaf was controlled 88, 82, 78, and 95% when metsulfuron was tank mixed with 2,4-D, dicamba, clopyralid, and fluroxypyr, respectively. In a separate field study, differential grain sorghum hybrid responses to a tank mix of metsulfuron + 2,4-D was examined. In general, a tank mix of metsulfuron and 2,4-D caused visible injury to all hybrids at 1 and 2 WAT, but grain sorghum recovered and most hybrids appeared normal at the end of the growing season. Differential hybrid responses to metsulfuron + 2,4-D were observed at 1 and 2 WAT in 2000 and 4 WAT in 2001. The most susceptible hybrid was ‘Mycogen 1506’, and the least susceptible hybrids were ‘NK KS-310’ and ‘Pioneer 87G57’. This study demonstrates the potential for 2,4-D or dicamba to safen metsulfuron injury of sorghum without compromising weed control.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-Ddicambafluroxypyrmetsulfurongrain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moenchivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHCrop safetyherbicide safenerstank mixturesweed control
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 2004 , pp. 319 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol 6:956–960.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K. and Tambane, A. 1999. Dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) response to low rates of selected foliar- and soil-applied sulfonylurea and growth regulator herbicides. Weed Technol 13:753–758.Google Scholar
Bean, B. W., Salisbury, C. D., Schoenhals, M. G., and Chenault, E. W. 1992. Metsulfuron use for weed control in grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 45:56.Google Scholar
Bean, B. W., Thomas, C. G., and Chenault, E. W. 1991. Postemergence application of sulfonylurea herbicides in grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 44:163.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1967. The effect of weed removal treatments on sorghum growth. Weed Sci 15:204–207.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1969. Influence of weed competition on sorghum growth. Weed Sci 17:332–334.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weed Sci 15:20–22.Google Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hurst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969a. Yellow foxtail competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci 17:211–213.Google Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hurst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969b. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci 17:214–216.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L. 1997. Postemergence Herbicides for Weed Control in Grain Sorghum. Manhattan, KS: Ashland Bottoms Research Farm, Kansas State University, Field Data Report.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Peterson, D. E., Ohlenbusch, P. D., Fick, W. H., Stahlman, P. W., and Wolf, R. E. 2001. Chemical Weed Control for Field Crops, Pastures, Rangeland, and Noncropland, 2001. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Report of Progress 867, Kansas State University.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Wicks, G. A. 2000. Weeds and their control in grain sorghum. Pages 535–582 in Smith, C. W. ed. Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Weise, A. F., Collier, J. W., Clark, L. E., and Havelka, U. D. 1964. Effect of weeds and cultural practices on sorghum yields. Weed Sci 12:209–211.Google Scholar
Yun, S. Y., Shim, L. S., and Usui, K. 2001. Involvement of cytochrome P- 450 enzyme activity in the selectivity and safening action of pyrazosulfuron-ethyl. Pest Manag. Sci 57:283–288.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999a. Harmful aspects of weeds. Pages 13–40 in Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999b. Surfactants and adjuvants. Pages 411–444 in Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego CA: Academic.Google Scholar