Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-rz424 Total loading time: 0.303 Render date: 2021-03-04T10:02:21.139Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Safening grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron with growth regulator herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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
Corresponding
E-mail address:

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.

Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
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.

References

Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol 6:956960.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 13:753758.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 15:204207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1969. Influence of weed competition on sorghum growth. Weed Sci 17:332334.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weed Sci 15:2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hurst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969a. Yellow foxtail competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci 17:211213.Google Scholar
Feltner, K. C., Hurst, H. R., and Anderson, L. E. 1969b. Tall waterhemp competition in grain sorghum. Weed Sci 17:214216.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 535582 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 4:215231.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 12:209211.CrossRefGoogle 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 57:283288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999a. Harmful aspects of weeds. Pages 1340 in Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999b. Surfactants and adjuvants. Pages 411444 in Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego CA: Academic.Google Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 17 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 4th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Safening grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron with growth regulator herbicides
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Safening grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron with growth regulator herbicides
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Safening grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron with growth regulator herbicides
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *