The effect of mesotrione applied with adjuvants on weed control efficacy and forage sorghum tolerance

Field experiments were conducted over 2 years to determine the influence of timing, rate, and method of application of mesotrione on weed control, forage sorghum injury, and fresh weight biomass. Sucrosorgo 506 sorghum was treated with 120 and 80 g ha-1 of mesotrione with petroleum oil (PO) or methylated seed oil (MSO) plus 28% N urea-ammonium nitrate liquid fertilizer (UAN). Mesotrione was applied once between the 4- and 6-leaf stages of sorghum or split and applied between the 2- and 3-leaf and the 6- and 7-leaf stages in 2 equal applications, with or without adjuvants. Mesotrione at 120 g ha-1 effectively controlled all weed species, except Geranium pusillum. At 80 g ha-1 it effectively controlled Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, and Polygonum aviculare, and at the 80 g ha-1 split application (40 + 40 g ha-1) it effectively controlled P. convolvulus and P. aviculare. Both PO and MSO, added to the spray liquid containing mesotrione at 80 g ha-1, made it possible to effectively eliminate weeds; a split application with PO effectively reduced the occurrence of C. album, Brassica napus, Thlaspi arvense, P. convolvulus, and P. aviculare, and application with MSO reduced the occurrence of C. album, P. convolvulus, and P. aviculare. Mesotrione at 120 and 80 g ha-1 as a single application and at an 80 g ha-1 split application did not cause injury to sorghum plants. The addition of PO or MSO adjuvant to 80 g ha-1 of mesotrione applied at a single rate caused slight injury to sorghum plants, which quickly recovered. No injury or slight symptoms were found after a few weeks on sorghum plants treated with a mesotrione at 80 g ha-1 split with PO and MSO. The addition of UAN to the spray mixture, apart from mesotrione and PO and MSO, inhibited growth and chlorosis on the leaves. The rate of 80 g of mesotrione with adjuvants is recommended for forage sorghum.

The effect of mesotrione applied with adjuvants on weed control efficacy and forage sorghum tolerance

Field experiments were conducted over 2 years to determine the influence of timing, rate, and method of application of mesotrione on weed control, forage sorghum injury, and fresh weight biomass. Sucrosorgo 506 sorghum was treated with 120 and 80 g ha-1 of mesotrione with petroleum oil (PO) or methylated seed oil (MSO) plus 28% N urea-ammonium nitrate liquid fertilizer (UAN). Mesotrione was applied once between the 4- and 6-leaf stages of sorghum or split and applied between the 2- and 3-leaf and the 6- and 7-leaf stages in 2 equal applications, with or without adjuvants. Mesotrione at 120 g ha-1 effectively controlled all weed species, except Geranium pusillum. At 80 g ha-1 it effectively controlled Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, and Polygonum aviculare, and at the 80 g ha-1 split application (40 + 40 g ha-1) it effectively controlled P. convolvulus and P. aviculare. Both PO and MSO, added to the spray liquid containing mesotrione at 80 g ha-1, made it possible to effectively eliminate weeds; a split application with PO effectively reduced the occurrence of C. album, Brassica napus, Thlaspi arvense, P. convolvulus, and P. aviculare, and application with MSO reduced the occurrence of C. album, P. convolvulus, and P. aviculare. Mesotrione at 120 and 80 g ha-1 as a single application and at an 80 g ha-1 split application did not cause injury to sorghum plants. The addition of PO or MSO adjuvant to 80 g ha-1 of mesotrione applied at a single rate caused slight injury to sorghum plants, which quickly recovered. No injury or slight symptoms were found after a few weeks on sorghum plants treated with a mesotrione at 80 g ha-1 split with PO and MSO. The addition of UAN to the spray mixture, apart from mesotrione and PO and MSO, inhibited growth and chlorosis on the leaves. The rate of 80 g of mesotrione with adjuvants is recommended for forage sorghum.

___

  • Abit MJM, Al-Khatib K (2009) Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of mesotrione in grain sorghum. Weed Sci 57: 563–566.
  • Abit MJM, Al-Khatib K, Currie RS, Stahlman PW, Geier PW, Gordon BW, Olson BLS, Claassen MM, Regehr DL (2010) Effect of postemergence mesotrione application timing on grain sorghum. Weed Technol 24: 85–90.
  • Abit MJM, Al-Khatib K, Regher DL, Tuinstra MR, Claassen MM, Stahlman PW, Gordon BW, Currie RS (2009) Differential response of grain sorghum hybrids to foliar-applied mesotrione. Weed Technol 23: 28–33.
  • Anderson DD, Roeth FW, Martin AR (1996) Occurrence and control of triazine-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10: 570–575.
  • Armel GR, Wilson HP, Richardson RJ, Hines TE (2003) Mesotrione combinations in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 17: 111–
  • Coetzer E, Al-Khatib K, Peterson DE (2002) Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16: 326–331.
  • FAOSTAT (2011) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Data available at http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default. aspx#ancor.
  • Graham PL, Steiner JL, Wiese AF (1988) Light absorption and competition in mixed sorghum-pigweed communities. Agron J 80: 415–418.
  • Gronwald JW, Jourdan DL, Wyse DL, Somers DA, Magnusson M (1993) Effect of ammonium sulfate on absorption of imazethapyr by quackgrass and maize cell suspension. Weed Sci 41: 325–334.
  • Horak MJ, Petersen DE (1995) Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9: 192–195.
  • Horky KT, Martin AR (2005) Evaluation of preemergence weed control programs in grain sorghum. NCWSS Research Report-V. 62, Weed Control in Special Crops. Lincoln, NE, USA: 30–32.
  • Idziak R, Woznica Z (2008) Efficacy of herbicide Callisto SC applied with adjuvants and a mineral fertilizer. Acta Agrophysica 11: 403–410.
  • Johnson BC, Young BG, Matthews JL (2002) Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol 16: 414–420.
  • Joost RE (1998) Benefits and mode of action on nitrogen fertilizers as adjuvants. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, pp. 259–266.
  • Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Blankenship EE, Van Acker RC, Lindquist JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50: 773–786.
  • Knezevic SZ, Horak MJ, Vanderlip RL (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.
  • Kopsell DA, McCurdy JD, McElroy JS, Sams CE, Sorochan JC (2008) Effects of mesotrione on perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) carotenoid concentration under varying environmental conditions. J Agric Food Chem 56: 9133–9139.
  • Mitchell G, Bartlett DW, Fraser TE, Hawkes TR, Holt DC, Townson JK, Wichert RA (2001) Mesotrione: a new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest Manag Sci 57: 120–128.
  • Nalewaja JD, Matysiak R (1993) Influence of diammonium sulfate and other salts on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Pestic Sci 38: 77–84.
  • Nalewaja JD, Matysiak R, Frejman TP (1992) Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci 40: 576–589.
  • Ngugi HK, King SB, Abayo GO, Reddy YVR (2002) Prevalence, incidence, and severity of sorghum diseases in western Kenya. Plant Disease 86: 65–70.
  • Norris RF (1980) Barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv] competition and seed production. Proc Weed Sci Soc Am 20: 5.
  • Praczyk T (2003) Diagnostyka Uszkodzeń Herbicydowych Roślin Rolniczych. PWRiL, Poznan (in Polish).
  • Robinson DE (2008) Atrazine accentuates carryover injury from mesotrione in vegetable crops. Weed Technol 22: 641–645.
  • Shoup DE, Al-Khatib K, Petersen DE (2003) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidaseinhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51: 145–150.
  • Showemimo FA, Alabi SO, Olurunju PE, Ajayi O (2011) Importance and management of head bug (Eurystylus oldi Poppius) of sorghum in Nigeria. Acad J Plant Sci 4: 26–29.
  • Smith BS, Murry DS, Green JD, Wanyahaya WM, Weeks DL (1990) Interference of three annual grasses with grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol 4: 245–249.
  • Smith K, Scott B (2010) Weed control in grain sorghum. In: Grain Sorghum Production Handbook (Eds. L Espinoza, J. Kelley). Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, USA, pp. 47–49.
  • Stahlman PW, Wicks GA (2000) Weeds and their control in sorghum. In: Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology, and Production (Eds. CW Smith, RA Frederiksen). John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 535–590.
  • Tacker P, Vories E, Huitink G (2006) Drainage and irrigation. In: Grain Sorghum Production Handbook (Eds. L Espinoza, J. Kelley). Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, USA, pp. 11–20.
  • Thompson CR, Peterson DE, Fick WH, Stahlman PW, Wolf RE (2011) Chemical weed control for field crops, pastures, rangeland, and noncropland. Report of Progress 1045. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service: 42–53.
  • Wilson RG, Westra P (1991) Wild millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 39: 217–220.
  • Woznica Z (2005) Wpływ adiuwantów na skuteczność chwastobójczą mezotrionu. PTPN Wydz Nauk Roln i Leśnych 98/99: 37–45 (in Polish).
  • Woznica Z, Idziak R (2010) Efficacy of herbicide mixtures with adjuvants in corn cultivation. Progress in Plant Protection 50: 845–848.
  • Woznica Z, Skrzypczak G (1998) Adjuvants for foliar applied herbicides. Ann Warsaw Agricult Univ – SGGW, Agriculture 32: 33–42.
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-011X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: TÜBİTAK
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Effects of winter green manuring on organic cucumber production in unheated greenhouse conditions

Yüksel TÜZEL, Hale DUYAR, Gölgen Bahar ÖZTEKİN, Özlem GÜRBÜZ KILIÇ

Tolerance and avoidance responses to salinity and water stresses in Calotropis procera and Suaeda aegyptiaca

Ali Hassan IBRAHIM

Effects of microbial inoculants Enterococcus faecium EF2/3s and EF26/42 on microbial, chemical, and fermentation parameters in grass silage

Zora VARADYOVA, Dusan JALC, Andrea LAUKOVA, Katarina MIHALIKOVA, Petr HOMOLKA

Control of lodging and reduction in plant length in rice (Oryza sativa L.) with the treatment of trinexapac-ethyl and sowing density

Rasim ÜNAN, İsmail SEZER, Mevlüt ŞAHİN, Luis A. J. MUR

Withdrawal force capacity of mortise and loose tenon T-type furniture joints

Mohammad DERIKVAND, Jerzy SMARDZEWSKI, Ghanbar EBRAHIMI, Mosayeb DALVAND, Sadegh MALEKI

Changes in phenolic content of wild and greenhouse-grown Hypericum triquetrifolium during plant development

Cüneyt ÇIRAK, Jolita RADUSIENE, Birute KARPAVICIENE, Necdet ÇAMAŞ, Mehmet Serhat ODABAŞ

Performance of Dacryodes edulis mycorrhized layers under different cropping conditions in Makenene, Cameroon

Martin MBEUYO, Nehemie DONFAGSITELI TCHINDA, Emmanuel YOUMBI

Land suitability assessment for rice cultivation based on GIS modeling

Orhan DENGİZ

Hydropriming and hot water-induced heat shock increase cotton seed germination and seedling emergence at low temperature

Yüksel BÖLEK, Mehmet Nuri NAS, Hatice ÇOKKIZGIN

Development of short gSSRs in G. arboreum and their utilization in phylogenetic studies

Tayyaba SHAHEEN, Yusuf ZAFAR, James M. STEWART, Mehboob-ur RAHMAN