Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T08:18:53.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Injury from Simulated Quinclorac Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Snipes ,
Joe E. Street  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Delta Branch Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS, 38776
Joe E. Street
Affiliation:
Delta Branch Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS, 38776
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response was evaluated when quinclorac was applied prior to cotton emergence (preemergence) and to cotton in the cotyledon and pin-head square stages in 1988, 1989, and 1990. Quinclorac applications at 9, 17, 35, 70, and 140 g ha−1 prior to cotton emergence had little effect on cotton growth, with only 140 g ha−1 causing stand reduction or stunting. Quinclorac application to cotton in the cotyledon stage caused more damage, and 70 g ha−1 caused crop injury. Greatest phytotoxicity was observed when quinclorac was applied to cotton at pin-head square, with all rates including 9 g ha−1 causing injury. Cotton injury consisted of leaf strapping and malformation of reproductive structures. Regression analysis revealed yield was reduced by quinclorac applications to cotton in the cotyledon or pin-head square stage. The approximate regression equation to predict cotton yields after pin-head square application of quinclorac was [yield] = [yield with no injury] − 10(quinclorac rate in g ha−1).

Keywords

Quinclorac, [(3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid]cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DES 119’Crop injuryaerial applicationnontarget application
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 106 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Anonymous. 1988. Herbicide Handbook. Pages 22–23. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
2. Crawford, S. H., Vidrine, P. R., and Collins, R. K. 1990. Phytotoxicity of quinclorac to cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:117.Google Scholar
3. Eastin, E. F. 1989. Quinclorac activity in rice as influenced by time of application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:70.Google Scholar
4. Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311–315.Google Scholar
5. Jacoby, P. W., Meadors, C. W., and Clark, L. E. 1990. Effects of triclopyr, clopyralid, and picloram on growth and production of cotton. J. Prod. Agric. 3:297–301.Google Scholar
6. Miller, J. H., Kempen, H. M., Wilkerson, J. A., and Foy, C. L. 1963. Response of cotton to 2,4-D and related phenoxy herbicides. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 1289. 28 pp.Google Scholar
7. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1990. Quinclorac and combinations for weed control in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:116.Google Scholar
8. Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5:493–498.Google Scholar
9. Street, J. E. and Baldwin, J. L. 1990. Comparison of PPI, PRE, and early POST applications of BAS 51400H. Proc. Rice Tech. Work. Group 23:131.Google Scholar