Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:06:11.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wine Grape (Vitis vinifera) Response to Repeated Exposure of Selected Sulfonylurea Herbicides and 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Muhammad A. Bhatti
Affiliation:
Food and Environ. Qual. Lab., Washington State Univ., Richland, WA 99352
Kassim Al-Khatib
Affiliation:
N.W. Res. Ext. Cent., Washington State Univ., Mt. Vernon, WA 98273
Robert Parker
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agric. Res. and Ext. Cent., Washington State Univ., Prosser, WA 99350

Abstract

‘Lemberger’ wine grape response was evaluated when chlorsulfuron, tribenuron, thifensulfuron, chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron, thifensulfuron plus tribenuron, and 2,4-D were applied up to three times at weekly intervals in 1992 and 1993 at rates simulating drift. All herbicides injured grapevines visibly. Symptoms increased and total leaf area and grape pruning weight decreased as the herbicide rate and number of applications increased. Grapevines generally recovered within 45 to 60 d from symptoms caused by single exposures to low levels of sulfonylurea herbicides. Multiple exposures of grapevines to 2,4-D, tribenuron, and chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron at 1/100 of the maximum use rate for wheat caused the greatest injury, which persisted throughout the entire growing season and reduced pruning weight. Based on potential use rate, the order of herbicide phytotoxicity was 2,4-D > tribenuron > chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron > thifensulfuron plus tribenuron > chlorsulfuron > thifensulfuron. Rates that slightly injured grapevines did not reduce growth as measured by pruning weight. However, multiple exposure to high rates of 2,4-D, tribenuron, and chlorsulfuron plus metsulfuron adversely affected growth.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. Adams, D. F., Jackson, C. M., and Bamesberger, W. L. 1964. Quantitative studies of 2,4-D esters in the air. Weeds 12:280283.Google Scholar
2. Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, P. 1992. Wine grape (Vitis vinifera) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol. 7:97102.Google Scholar
3. Beyer, E. M. Jr., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1988. Sulfonylurea. p. 117189 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicide Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Vol. 3. Marcel Decker, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
4. Clore, W. J. 1972. 2,4-D on Concord grapes. Washington State Grape Soc. Proc, Grandview, WA 2:2932.Google Scholar
5. Farwell, S. O., Robinson, E., Powell, W. J., and Adams, D. F. 1976. Survey of airborne 2,4-D in south-central Washington. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 26:224230.Google Scholar
6. Fennel, A., Luby, J., and Hoover, E. 1987. Midwest 2,4-D damage to grapes. Vinifera Wine Grower. Summer 1987. p. 8489.Google Scholar
7. Ogg, A. Jr., Ahmedullah, A., and Wright, G. A. 1991. Influence of repeated applications of 2,4-D on yield and juice quality of Concord grapes (Vitis labruscana). Weed Sci. 39:284295.Google Scholar
8. Reisinger, L. M. and Robinson, E. 1976. Long distance transport of 2,4-D. J. Appl. Meteorol. 15:836845.Google Scholar
9. Robinson, E. and Fox, L. L. 1978. 2,4-D herbicides in central Washington. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 28:10151020.Google Scholar
10. Weaver, R. J., Leonard, O. A., and McCune, S. B. 1961. Response of Tokay grapes to spray applications of 2,4-D. Hilgardia 31:419433.Google Scholar