Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:34:43.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Fluometuron and MSMA on Cotton Yield and Fruiting Characteristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Snipes  and
J. D. Byrd Jr.
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agric. For. Exp. Stn., P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS 38766
J. D. Byrd Jr.
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agric. For. Exp. Stn., P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS 38766
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments conducted from 1987 through 1991 at the Delta Branch Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS, determined the effect of postemergence topical applications of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting. Herbicide treatments applied to cotton in the cotyledon to 1-leaf growth stage were 1.12 kg ai ha-1 fluometuron plus 0.25% by vol nonionic surfactant, 2.2 kg ai ha-1 MSMA, and a combination of 1.12 kg ha-1 fluometuron and 2.24 kg ha-1 MSMA. The commercial formulation of MSMA contained nonionic surfactant. Visual injury of cotton 14 d after treatment ranged from 14 to 28% for fluometuron, 9 to 26% for MSMA, and 22 to 34% for the combination. Seed cotton yield at the first harvest was reduced by all herbicide treatments except in 1987 and for DES 119 cotton in 1990. In 1990, yield of DES 119 cotton treated with MSMA and the combination was less than the untreated control for the second harvest interval. Cotton yield from herbicide treatments at later harvests was equal to or greater than the untreated control. Only in 1988 did all treatments reduce total seed cotton yield below the untreated control. Fiber quality was not adversely affected by the herbicides. Compared to the control, plant mapping indicated that the number of sympodial branches per plant was reduced by MSMA and by the combination for DPL 50 cotton in 1990. Averaged over 4 experiment years, herbicide treatments did not reduce total bolls per plant; percentage of bolls in first, second, or outer positions; highest sympodium with two bolls; or number of sympodium with bolls in the first or second position. However, MSMA and the combination increased node number of the first sympodia by one and 1.5 positions, respectively, when compared to the control, indicating delayed maturity.

Keywords

Fluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)-phenyl]ureaMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., ‘DES 422,’ ‘DES 119,’ and ‘DPL 50.’Plant mappingfiber qualitymicronairematurityherbicide phytotoxicityCOTMAP
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 210 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Arle, H. F. and Hamilton, K. C. 1976. Over-the-top application of herbicides in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Arle, H. F. and Hamilton, K. C. 1971. Topical applications of DSMA and MSMA in irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 19:545–547.Google Scholar
3. Baker, R. S., Arle, H. F., Miller, J. H., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1968. Effects of organic arsenical herbicides on cotton response and chemical residues. Weed Sci. 16:37–40.Google Scholar
4. Barrentine, W. L., Snipes, C. E., and Baker, R. S. 1992. Herbicide application techniques in cotton. Pages 439–506 in Abernathy, J. R. and McWhorter, C. G., eds. Weeds in Cotton. Nat. Cotton Counc., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
5. Bourland, F. M. and Watson, C. E. Jr. 1990. COTMAP, a technique for evaluating structure and yield of cotton plants. Crop Sci. 30:224–226.Google Scholar
6. Bridge, R. R. and McDonald, L. D. 1987. Beltwide efforts and trends in development of varieties for short-season production systems. Pages 81–84 in Brown, J. M. and Nelson, T. C., eds. Beltwide Prod. Res. Conf., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
7. Bridge, R. R., Miller, S. R., and Lane, S. M. 1984. Blooming rates of thirteen cotton varieties. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. Vol. 9(17).Google Scholar
8. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 33:270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Eisner, J. E., Smith, C. W., and Owen, D. F. 1979. Uniform stage descriptions in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 19:361–363.Google Scholar
10. Guthrie, D. S. 1986. Fruiting profile of cotton following over top applications of fluometuron and MSMA. Page 253 in Proc. 1986 Beltwide Cotton Conf.Google Scholar
11. Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.Google Scholar
12. Jenkins, J. N., McCarthy, J. C. Jr., and Parrott, W. L. 1990. Effectiveness of fruiting sites in cotton: Yield. Crop Sci. 30:365–369.Google Scholar
13. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1971. Cotton response to temperature and organic arsenicals. Weed Sci. 19:297–300.Google Scholar
14. Oakley, S. R., Frans, R. E., and Terhune, M. E. 1983. Studies document yield loss from MSMA applied over-the-top. Ark. Farm Res. 32(2): 10.Google Scholar
15. Turner, J. H. Jr., Worley, S. Jr., Ramey, H. H. Jr., Hoskinson, P. E., and Stewart, J. M. 1979. Relationship of week of flowering and parameters of boll yield in cotton. Agron. J. 71:248–251.Google Scholar