Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-28jzs Total loading time: 0.429 Render date: 2021-03-08T12:17:31.710Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
Weed Technology Weed Technology

Article contents

Grain Sorghum Response to Simulated Drift from Glufosinate, Glyphosate, Imazethapyr, and Sethoxydim 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kassim Al-Khatib ,
Mark M. Claassen ,
Phillip W. Stahlman ,
Patrick W. Geier ,
David L. Regehr ,
Stewart R. Duncan  and
William F. Heer
Kassim Al-Khatib
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Mark M. Claassen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Patrick W. Geier
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
David L. Regehr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Stewart R. Duncan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
William F. Heer
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Corresponding
E-mail address:
khatib@ksu.edu
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at four locations in Kansas in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate grain sorghum response to simulated drift rates of four herbicides. Imazethapyr, glufosinate, glyphosate, and sethoxydim were applied at 1/3, 1/10, 1/33, and 1/100 of the use rate when plants were 10 to 20 cm tall. Visible crop injury increased as rates of each herbicide increased. Glyphosate and imazethapyr caused the most injury and glufosinate the least. Data show that some plants that were significantly injured 2 wk after treatment (WAT) recovered 8 WAT. However, some plants that received the highest rate of imazethapyr or glyphosate died. Grain sorghum yields were reduced only when injury was severe. This research showed that the potential for sorghum injury from off-target herbicide drift is greater from imazethapyr and glyphosate than from sethoxydim or glufosinate.

Keywords

Glufosinate glyphosate imazethapyr sethoxydim sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench Crop injury herbicide drift herbicide symptoms DAT, days after treatment WAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 261 - 265
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.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Currie, R. S., Maddux, L. D., Thompson, C. R., and Price, T. M. 2000. Corn response to simulated herbicide drift. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 5–6.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Mink, G. I., Reisenauer, G., Parker, R., Westberg, H., and Lamb, B. 1993a. Development of a biologically-based system for detection and tracking of airborne herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 404–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992a. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol. 6: 956–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992b. Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol. 6: 975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1993b. Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) response to simulated herbicide drift. Weed Technol. 7: 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. E. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13: 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K. and Tamhane, A. 1999. Dry pea (Pisum sativum) response to low rates of selected foliar- and soil-applied sulfonylurea and growth regulator herbicides. Weed Technol. 13: 753–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, E. M. Jr., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1988. Sulfonylurea. In Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Volume 3. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 117–189.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E. 1987. Spray application technology. In McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. M. 2001. Glufosinate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in amaranth as affected by relative humidity and temperature. Weed Sci. 49: 8–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 274–278.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. S., Pfleeger, T. G., Ratsch, H. C., and Hays, R. 1996. Potential impact of low levels of chlorsulfuron and other herbicides on growth and yield of nontarget plants. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14: 537–544.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Boerboom, C. M., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1995. Growth and yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.) sprayed with low rates of sulfonylurea and phenoxy herbicides. Weed Sci. 43: 640–647.Google Scholar
Ghosheh, H. Z., Chandler, J. M., and Bierman, R. H. 1994. Impact of DPX-PE350 drift on corn and grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 24.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Chase, C. A., and Locascio, S. J. 2001. Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide. I. Tomato. Hortiscience 36: 669–673.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant adjuvants on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol. 9: 380–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30: 311–315.Google Scholar
Maybank, J., Yoshida, K., and Grover, R. 1978. Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. J. 28: 1009–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. C. H. 1993. Spray drift and its measurement. 1993. In Metthews, G. A. and Hislop, E. C., eds. Application Technology for Crop Protection. Wallingford, UK: CABI. pp. 101–122.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1995. Sugarcane (Saccharum spp) response to simulated fluzaifop-P drift. Weed Sci. 43: 660–665.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 29: 303–308.Google Scholar
Schroeder, G. L., Cole, D. F., and Dexter, A. G. 1983. Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Sci. 31: 831–836.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5: 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone-acetohydroxyacid synthase interactions. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicide. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1997. Effect of crop growth on tolerance to low doses of thifensulfuron:tribenuron. Weed Sci. 45: 538–545.Google Scholar
Zwerger, P. and Pestemer, W. 2000. Testing the phytotoxic effects of herbicides on higher terrestrial non-target plants using a plant life cycle test. Z. Pflanzenkr. Pflanzenschutz. Sonderh. 17: 711–718.Google Scholar

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: 22 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

20 Cited by

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.

Grain Sorghum Response to Simulated Drift from Glufosinate, Glyphosate, Imazethapyr, and Sethoxydim 1
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.

Grain Sorghum Response to Simulated Drift from Glufosinate, Glyphosate, Imazethapyr, and Sethoxydim 1
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.

Grain Sorghum Response to Simulated Drift from Glufosinate, Glyphosate, Imazethapyr, and Sethoxydim 1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *