Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:46:45.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Response of Grain Sorghum Hybrids to Foliar-Applied Mesotrione

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

M. Joy M. Abit ,
Kassim Al-Khatib ,
David L. Regehr ,
Mitchell R. Tuinstra ,
Mark M. Claassen ,
Patrick W. Geier ,
Phillip W. Stahlman ,
Barney W. Gordon  and
Randall S. Currie
M. Joy M. Abit
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
David L. Regehr
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Mitchell R. Tuinstra
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Mark M. Claassen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Patrick W. Geier
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Barney W. Gordon
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Randall S. Currie
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The selection of herbicide-resistant weeds in grain sorghum production has prompted researchers to explore alternative herbicides to prevent, delay, and manage herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to evaluate the differential response of sorghum hybrids to POST application of mesotrione. In a greenhouse experiment, 85 sorghum hybrids were treated with 0, 52, 105, 210, and 315 g ai/ha mesotrione when plants were at the three- to four-leaf collar stage. Sorghum response ranged from susceptible to tolerant sorghum hybrids. ‘Pioneer 84G62’, ‘Pioneer 85G01’, and ‘Triumph TR 438’ were the three most susceptible, whereas ‘Dekalb DKS35-70’, ‘Frontier F222E’, and ‘Asgrow Seneca’ were the three most tolerant hybrids. One week after treatment (WAT), the mesotrione rate causing 50% visible injury ranged from 121 to 184 and 64 to 91 g/ha in the most tolerant and susceptible hybrids, respectively. Mesotrione dose–response studies were conducted under field conditions on four sorghum hybrids. One WAT, injury symptoms were greater (up to 23%) in Pioneer 85G01 than in Asgrow Seneca (< 14%). However, all plants appeared normal by the end of the growing season. In addition, sorghum yields were not reduced by mesotrione treatments as verified by correlation coefficient analysis.

Keywords

Mesotrionesorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. SORBIHPPD-inhibiting herbicideshybridsvisible injury
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 28 - 33
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

Anderson, D. D., Roeth, F. W., and Martin, A. R. 1996. Occurrence and control of triazine-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:570–575.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2007. USDA-NASS quick stats (crops). http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp. Accessed: June 27, 2007.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2008a. Herbicide Resistant Weeds of USA. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UniqueCountry.asplstCountryID45. Accessed October 2, 2008.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2008b. Kansas State University Weather Data Library. http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/freeze1.htm. Accessed: May 14, 2008.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Hall, G. J., Wilson, H. P., and Cullen, N. 2005. Mesotrione plus atrazine mixtures for control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 53:202–211.Google Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003a. Mesotrione alone and in mixtures with glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 17:680–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., Richardson, R. J., and Hines, T. E. 2003b. Mesotrione combinations in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 17:111–116.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop losses due to weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 403.Google Scholar
Brown, D. W., Al-Khatib, K., Regehr, D. L., Stahlman, P. W., and Loughin, T. M. 2004. Safening grain sorghum injury from metsulfuron with growth regulator herbicides. Weed Sci 52:319–325.Google Scholar
Bunting, J. A., Sprague, C. L., and Riechers, D. E. 2004. Corn (Zea mays) tolerance as affected by the timing of foramsulfuron applications. Weed Technol 18:757–762.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Dayan, F. E., Romagni, J. G., and Rimando, A. M. 2000. Natural products as sources of herbicides: current status and future trends. Weed Res 40:99–111.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Doohan, D. J. 2005. Response of five vegetables crops to isoxaflutole soil residues. Weed Technol 19:391–396.Google Scholar
Griffin, K. A., Dickens, R., and West, M. S. 1994. Imazapyr for common bermudagrass control in sod fields. Crop Sci 34:202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pestic. Sci 51:235–243.Google Scholar
Horky, K. T. and Martin, A. R. 2005. Evaluation of preemergence weed control programs in grain sorghum. Pages 30–32. in. Weed Control in Specialty Crops. Lincoln, NE: 2005 NCWSS Research Report-V.62.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed–sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench] competition. Weed Sci 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2004. Early-season weed management strategies in grain sorghum. Fact Sheet. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. 2.Google Scholar
Miller, J. N. and Regehr, D. L. 2002. Grain sorghum tolerance to postemergence mesotrione applications. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci 57:136.Google Scholar
Moore, J. W., Murray, D. S., and Westerman, R. B. 2004. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) effects on the harvest and yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol 18:23–29.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Zandstra, J., and Sikkema, P. 2002. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol 16:421–425.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. 1998. Grain Sorghum Handbook: Weed Control. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. 10–11.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. E., Soltani, N., and Sikkema, P. H. 2006. Response of four market classes of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to foramsulfuron, isoxaflutole, and isoxaflutole plus atrazine applied in previous years. Weed Technol 16:421–425.Google Scholar
Rosales-Robles, E., Sanchez-de-la-Cruz, R., Salinas-Garcia, J., and Pacina-Quintero, V. 2005. Broadleaf weed management in grain sorghum with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 19:385–390.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Shipley, J. L. and Wiese, A. F. 1969. Economics of weed control in sorghum and wheat. Amarillo, TX: Texas Agricultural Experimental Station. Progress Report MP-909. 3–8.Google Scholar
Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145–150.Google Scholar
Smith, K. and Scott, B. 2006. Grain Sorghum Production Handbook: Weed Control in Grain Sorghum. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. 74.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Wicks, G. A. 2000. Weeds and their control in grain sorghum. Pages 535–582. in Smith, C. W., editor. Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Bond, J. A., Walker, E. R., Bararpour, M. T., and Oliver, L. R. 2004. Evaluation of mesotrione in Mississippi delta corn production. Weed Technol 18:1111–1116.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 29–55. in Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., editors. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Sutton, P. B., Richards, C., Buren, L., and Glasgow, L. 2002. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci 58:981–984.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Townson, J. K., Bartlett, D. W., and Foxon, G. A. 1999. Technical review of mesotrione, a new maize herbicide. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf 1:105–110.Google Scholar
Wright, T. R., Ogg, A. G., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Dissipation and water activation of UCC-C4243. Weed Sci 43:149–155.Google Scholar