Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:29:20.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat Response to Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Imazamox Applied at Two Growth Stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Zacharria A. Deeds ,
Kassim Al-Khatib ,
Dallas E. Peterson  and
Phillip W. Stahlman
Zacharria A. Deeds
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 2004A Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 2004A Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 2004A Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
Phillip W. Stahlman
Affiliation:
Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS 67601
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Hays and Manhattan, KS, in 2002 and 2003 to determine winter wheat response to simulated drift rates of glyphosate and imazamox. Glyphosate and imazamox at 1/100×, 1/33×, 1/10×, and 1/3× of usage rates of 840 g ae/ha glyphosate and 35 g/ha imzamox were applied individually to wheat in the early jointing or the early flower stages of growth. Wheat injury and yield loss increased as herbicide rate was increased, with minimal effect from either herbicide at the 1/100× rate, and nearly complete kill and yield loss of wheat from both herbicides applied at the 1/3× rate, regardless of growth stage at application. In general, wheat injury and yield reduction were greater from glyphosate than from imazamox. In addition, wheat injury and yield loss were greater from herbicide treatment at the jointing stage than at the flowering stage of development. Correlation analysis suggests that visual injury is an accurate indicator of yield reductions. Germination tests of harvested grain showed that the viability of the wheat seed was not reduced if plants survived the herbicide treatment and produced a harvestable seed.

Keywords

Glyphosateimazamoxwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Crop injuryherbicide driftherbicide symptomsyield reductionWATweeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 23 - 31
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

Al-Khatib, K., Boydston, R., Parker, R., and Furest, E. P. 1992. Atrazine phytotoxicity to common bean and redroot pigweed under different temperatures. Weed Sci. 40:364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Claassen, M. M., Stahlman, P. W., Geier, P. W., Regehr, D. L., Ducan, S. R., and Heer, W. F. 2003. Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 17:261–265.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. Pea (Pisum sativum) response to low rates of selected foliar- and soil-applied sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:753–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bode, L. E. 1987. Spray application technology. in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R., eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Monograph 4. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. 1989. Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:191–213.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied regression analysis. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 15–76, 135–169, 505–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Jones, C. A. 2002. Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:587–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, C. J., Mclnnes, K. J., and Cothren, J. T. 1994. Carbon balance transpiration, and biomass partitioning of glyphosate-treated wheat (Triticum aestivum) plants. Weed Sci. 42:333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franz, J. E. 1985. Discovery, development and chemistry of glyphosate. in Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate, London: Butterworths. Pp. 3–17.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: Wiley-Interscience. Pp. 85–129.Google Scholar
Guo, P. and Al-Khatib, K. 2003. Temperature effects on germination and growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis). Weed Sci. 51:869–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kansas State University. 2004. Weather Data Library: Precipitation by Counties: Web page: http://ftp.oznet.ksu.edu/wdl/drought/BR.PCP. Accessed August 30, 2004.Google Scholar
Maybank, J., Yoshida, K., and Grover, R. 1978. Spray drift from agricultural pesticide application. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. J. 28:1009–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Freeman, T. P. 1992. Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40:576–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, B. L., Al-Khatib, K., Stahlman, P., Parrish, S., and Moran, S. 1999. Absorption and translocation of MON 37500 in wheat and other grass species. Weed Sci. 47:37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., and Delannay, X. et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 35:1451–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. L. and Schafer, D. W. 1997. The Statistical Sleuth. A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury. Pp. 91–97.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Peterson, D. E., Fick, W. H., Stahlman, P. W., and Wolf, R. E. 2004. Chemical weed control for field crops, pasture, rangeland, and noncropland, 2004. Report of Progress 917. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.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
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P. and Young, F. L. 2000. Effect of preharvest glyphosate application on seed and seedling quality of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 14:212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar