Herbisit Uygulamalarının Bazı Kültür Bitkileri Üzerinde Oluşturduğu Zararlanmalar

Öz

Yabancı ot kontrolünde kimyasal mücadele, kolay uygulanabilir, kısa vadede ekonomik ve hızlı sonuç vermesi nedeniyle en çok tercih edilen yöntemlerin başında gelir. Ancak üreticilerin hatalı kimyasal (pestisit) kullanımı ve / veya hatalı uygulamalardan dolayı kültür bitkilerinde zararlanmalar meydana getirebilmektedir. Bu çalışma ile pestisitler içerisinde önemli bir paya sahip olan herbisitlerin kültür bitkilerinde oluşturabilecek simptomları ve zarar miktarlarını ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma Çukurova Bölgesinde üretimi yapılan beş farklı kültür bitkisinde (ayçiçeği, buğday, domates, mısır, pamuk) 2010 yılı içerisinde yapılmıştır. Çalışmalarda 2,4-D acid dimethylamin, glyphosate isopropylamine tuzu 480 g/l, bentazone 480 g/l, foramsulfuron 22,5 g/l, mesosulfuronmethyl+iodosulfuron-methyl sodium 3 + 0,6 g/l, fluazifop-p-butyl 150 g/l ve prometryne 500 g/l olmak üzere yedi farklı etken maddeye sahip herbisit kullanılmıştır. Kullanılan herbisitlerin dört farklı dozu (önerilen dozun yarısıN/2, önerilen doz-N, önerilen dozun iki katı-2N ve dört katı-4N) sera koşullarında saksılarda yetiştirilen kültür bitkilerine uygulanmış ve elde edilen veriler fiziksel şekilde incelenmiştir. Saksı denemeleri sonucun da kullanılan herbisitlerin farklı bitkilerde farklı fitotoksitelere neden olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kültür bitkilerinde en belirgin simptomlar; yapraklarda sararma, bamyalaşma, dokularda sararma ve ardından dokuların renk değiştirmesiyle kahverengileşme, bitkilerde cılızlaşmayı takiben çalımsı form oluşumu sarkma, solma, yaprak kenarları, yaprak sapları ve yaprak damarlarında kızarma, bitki boyu gelişiminde durma, büzüşme, yaprak dokuların da deformasyon ve nekroz meydana gelmiştir. Çalışma ile farklı herbisitlerin farklı kültür bitkilerine göre oluşturduğu zarar şekilleri adlandırılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Herbisitler, Simptom, Kültür Bitkileri, Fitotoksite

Damages Caused by Different Doses of Herbicide Application on Some Crops

Öz

The most common preferable method by the farmers is chemical weed management which is economical in short term and faster result to get rid of weeds. These chemicals (herbicides) are caused some damage to crops due to wrong usage with technical implementation. In this study, we were planned to identify damages, damage rates and possible symptoms of herbicide chemicals. The applications were done on five different crops which are used in Cukurova Region (sunflower, wheat, tomato, corn, cotton) in 2010. Four different doses which were advised of half dose (N/2), advised dose (N), two times of advised dose (2N) and four times of advised dose (4N) of seven herbicides were applied on chosen crops which grown in pots under greenhouse conditions. These herbicides were 2,4-D acid dimethylamin, glyphosate isopropylamine salt 480 g/l, bentazone 480 g/l, foramsulfuron 22,5 g/l, mesosulfuron - methyl + iodosulfuron - methyl sodium 3 + 0,6 g/I, fluazifop-p-butyl 150 g/l, and prometryne 500 g/l and also we were checked the herbicide efficiency of damages over crops. In 2,4-D amine made tomato and sunflower leaves first return yellow and then killed, cotton leaves a typical symptom seen nested leaves, the formation of white spots were seen in the form of making, ripening in glyphosate tissue culture plants have all become brown and then burned the tissues changed the appearance of color drenched, in bentzone herbicide tomato and wheat plants in the form of the plant brought the length grows with weak plant, all plants in foramsulfuron herbicide fading the plants progressive doses caused by folding the cotton plants and sagging leaf edges, leaf stems and leaf veins fried, in mesosulfuron-methyl + iodosulfuron-methyl sodium herbicide made plant height development of cultural crops ripening had stopped, fluazifob-p-butyl effective agent makes the tissues deformed by shrinkage in plants and necrosis formed in the later burned crops seen in prometryn

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Herbicides, Symptom, Crops, Phytotoxicity

Kaynakça

1. Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., Fuerst, E.P., 1993.Wine Grape (Vitis vinifera L.)Response to Simulated Herbicide Drift. Weed Technology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1993), pp. 97-102.
2. Anonymous, 2008. 2,4-D Herbicide Injury to Wheat, (May, 20). Northwest Ohio Crop, Pest & Weather Report, The Ohio State University Extension, USA. http://nwohcropweather.blogspot.com.tr/2008/05/24-d-herbicide-injury-towheat.html(Erişim tarihi: 5 Eylül, 2011).
3. Anonymous, 2011. Herbicide Injury Symptoms on Corn and Soybeans, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA.
4. https://www.btny.purdue.edu/Extension/Weeds/HerbInj2/InjuryHerb1.html(Erişim tarihi: 1 Aralık, 2011).
5. Bachi, P., 2010. Herbicide Injury, Growth Regulator Injury (Phenoxy Herbicide) on Sunflower (Helianthus sp.). University of Kentucky Research And Education Center (May,04), USA.
6. http://www.insectimages.org/collections/viewcollection.cfm?&coll=72249(Erişim tarihi: 4 Mayıs, 2010).
7. Cavanaugh, K.J., Durgan, B.R., Zollinger, R.K., Selberg, W.A., 2009. Herbicide and nonherbicide injury symptoms on spring wheat and barley. University of Minnesota Extension, USA.
8. http://nwohcropweather.blogspot.com.tr/2008/05/24-d-herbicide-injury-to-wheat.html(Erişim tarihi: 5 Eylül, 2011).

9. Dekker, J., 1997. Bentazone Injury.Chemical Weed Control Tactics, Iowa State University, USA.
10. http://www.agron.iastate.edu/~weeds/Ag317/manage/herbicide/bentazon.html (Erişim tarihi: 12 Mart 2011)
11. Diebold, S., Robinson, D., Zandstra, J., O’Sullivan, J., Sikkema, P.H., 2004. Weed Technology: October 2004, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 982-987.
12. Dotray P. 2007.Herbicide Damage to Cotton, (October, 01). Texas A&M University, USA.
13. http://cotton.tamu.edu/Photos/herbicide_injury/index.html(Erişim tarihi: 5 Kasım 2011)
14. Ferrell, J.A., Faircloth, W.H., Brecke, B.J., Macdonald, G.E., 2007. Influence of Cotton Height on Injury From Flumioxazin and Glyphosate Applied Post-Directed. Weed Technology, 21(3):709–713.
15. Gunsolus, J.L., Curan, W.S., 2002. Herbicide Mode of Action and Injury Symptoms, North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 377, Extension Service, University of Minnesota, USA.
16. http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/kpuettmann/FS%20533/Vegetation%20Management/Herbicide%20Mode%20of%20Action% 20and%20Injury%20Symptoms.htm(Erişim tarihi: 15 Mayıs, 2011)
17. Lookabaugh, E., 2011. Herbicide Injury to Tomatoes, (April, 19). Plant Disease and Insect Clinic, North Carolina State University, USA.http://ncsupdicblog.blogspot.com.tr/2011_04_01_archive.html(Erişim tarihi: 12 Kasım 2011)
18. Oerke, E.C., Dehne, H.W., Schonbeck, F., Weber, A., 1994. Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops, Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 1994. 808 pp.
19. Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D., 2000. Enviromental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in The United States. Vol.50:53-65, No.1 (January 2000), BioScience.
20. http://www.rexano.org/Federal_Canada/PimentelEtal00CostExotics.pdf(Erişim tarihi: 12 Aralık 2011)
21. Smith, S., 2010. Herbicide Damage on Tomatoes, Bloomer Online (March, 22). University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, USA.
22. Uygur, F.N., Koch, W., Walter, H., 1984. Yabancı Ot Bilimine Giriş. PLITS, 1984/2(1), Verlog J. Margraf, 114s, Stuttgart, Germany.