Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T22:06:50.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Response to Postemergence Applications of Atrazine, Pendimethalin, and Trifluralin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. James Grichar ,
Brent A. Besler  and
Kevin D. Brewer
W. James Grichar*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102
Brent A. Besler
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102
Kevin D. Brewer
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: w-grichar@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 2000 through 2002 to evaluate the effects of atrazine, pendimethalin, and trifluralin applied alone or in combination followed by cultivation when weeds and grain sorghum were less than 7 cm tall (early postemergence [EPOST]) or when weeds and grain sorghum were 10 to 15 cm tall (late postemergence [LPOST]). Atrazine plus pendimethalin applied EPOST caused 9 to 14% sorghum stunting all 3 yr while atrazine plus trifluralin applied EPOST caused 1 to 4% grain sorghum stunting. When applied LPOST, atrazine plus pendimethalin or trifluralin resulted in no greater than 3% stunting. Tumble pigweed was controlled at least 99% with atrazine plus pendimethalin or trifluralin applied EPOST or LPOST, whereas Texas panicum was controlled at least 97% with atrazine plus pendimethalin or trifluralin applied EPOST, and 76 to 100% with LPOST application. Sorghum yields were reduced with atrazine plus pendimethalin applied EPOST when compared with all herbicide combinations in one of 3 yr.

Keywords

Atrazinependimethalintrifluralintumble pigweed, Amaranthus albus L. # AMAALTexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEgrain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. ‘DKS 54-00’, ‘Pioneer 8313’Cultivationcrop tolerancestuntingyield reductionEPOST, early postemergenceLPOST, late postemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 999 - 1003
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

Abernathy, J. R. and Keeling, J. W. 1979. Efficacy and rotational crop response to levels and dates of dinitroaniline herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 27:312–317.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. P. 1983. Herbicides. in Weed Science: Principals. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. Pp. 248–253.Google Scholar
Appleby, A. P. and Valverde, B. E. 1989. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in plants. Weed Technol. 3:198–206.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
Buchanan, G. A., Hauser, E. W., and Street, J. 1978. Response of peanuts to dinitroaniline herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 31:105–114.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1969. Influence of weed competition on sorghum growth. Weed Sci. 17:332–334.Google Scholar
Chenault, E. W., Bean, B. W., and Salisbury, C. D. 1992. Influence of incorporation methods on pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) and barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv] control with trifluralin and pendimethalin in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:57.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
Greer, H. A., Tripp, L. D., and Santleman, P. W. 1969. The influence of environmental conditions on weed control and Spanish peanut injury by herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:145–149.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1993. Effect of dinitroaniline herbicides upon yield and grade of five runner cultivars. Peanut Sci. 20:126–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzois, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
Jachetta, J. J. and Radosevich, S. R. 1981. Enhanced degradation of atrazine by corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 29:37–44.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N., Baker, R. S., and Barrentine, W. L. 1977. Comparative toxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:72–75.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1999. Peanut seedling response to dinitroaniline herbicides applied preplant incorporated and preemergence. Peanut Sci. 26:28–32.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Dotray, P. A., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Effects of repeated applications of trifluralin and pendimethalin on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 10:295–298.Google Scholar
Merkle, M. G. 1975. Weed control. in Peanut Production in Texas. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experimental Station. Pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
Miller, A. J., Bellinder, R. R., Bradley, B. X., Rauch, B. J., Goffinet, M. C., and Welser, M. J C. 2003. Cabbage (Brassica oleracea) response to pendimethalin applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 17:256–260.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H., Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thulen, R. J. 1975. Soil persistence of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 23:211–214.Google Scholar
Munoz, R. F., Coats, G. E., and Scruggs, J. W. 1986. Broadleaf signalgrass control with pendimethalin in grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:41.Google Scholar
Moore, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 2000. Influence of Palmer amaranth on grain sorghum yields. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:143–144.Google Scholar
Murray, D. S., Santelman, P. W., and Greer, H. A. L. 1973. Differential phytotoxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Agron. J. 65:34–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1980. Barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv] competition and seed production. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 20:5.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Johnson, W. C. III, and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2001. Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:36–41.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
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1999. Herbicide incorporation techniques and equipment. in Stewart, C., Stagman, J., and Carnis, M., eds. Applied Weed Science. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 371–375.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. Pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Smith, B. S., Murray, D. S., Green, J. D., Wanyahaya, W. M., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Interference of three annual grasses with grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol. 4:245–249.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. and Banks, P. A. 1994. Effects of tillage systems and weed management on weed populations in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:541–547.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1990. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol. 4:394–406.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey-southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:247–274.Google Scholar