Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T08:45:48.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Consecutive Annual Applications of Fluometuron on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. M. Hayes ,
P. E. Hoskinson ,
J. R. Overton  and
L. S. Jeffery
R. M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. of Tennessee, West Tennessee Agric. Exp. Stn., Jackson, TN 38301
P. E. Hoskinson
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. of Tennessee, West Tennessee Agric. Exp. Stn., Jackson, TN 38301
J. R. Overton
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. of Tennessee, West Tennessee Agric. Exp. Stn., Jackson, TN 38301
L. S. Jeffery
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton [Gossypium hirsutum (L.) ‘Hancock’] lint yield or quality was not adversely affected under weed free conditions by three consecutive annual preemergence applications of up to 1.68 kg/ha fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(a,a,a-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] alone or in combination with 0.84 kg/ha trifluralin (a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) preplant incorporated on silt loam soils of the Memphis catena containing less than 1% organic matter. Similar applications of fluometuron at 3.36 kg/ha delayed maturity of cotton plants and ultimately reduced lint yields. Trifluralin treatments tended to overcome the detrimental effects of high rates of fluometuron. There was no effect on fiber development and maturation because fiber length and fineness (micronaire) were virtually identical for all treatments. The effect on maturity as determined by percent first harvest was a reflection of slower plant growth and fruiting and not of the development of the fiber itself. These results indicate no detrimental effects on cotton yield, maturity, and quality from annual applications of these herbicides at rates recommended and normally used in Tennessee.

Keywords

Soil persistencetrifluralininteractioncotton qualitycotton maturity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 120 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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. Anderson, W. P., Richards, A. B., and Whitworth, J. W. 1967. Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weeds 15:224–227.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbold, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25:132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Chambers, A. Y., Russell, W. G., Overton, J. R., and Andrews, H. 1969. Effects of combinations of certain pesticides on growth and development of cotton seedlings. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. 1969:132–134.Google Scholar
4. Chandler, J. M. and Oliver, E. R. 1979. Spurred anoda: a potential weed in southern crops. U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. Ed. Admin. Agric. Rev. and Man. S-2. 19 pp.Google Scholar
5. Darding, R. L. and Freeman, J. E. 1968. Residual phytotoxicity of fluometuron in soils. Weed Sci. 16:226–229.Google Scholar
6. Eshel, Y. 1969. Tolerance of cotton to diuron, fluometuron, norea and prometryne. Weed Sci. 17:492–496.Google Scholar
7. Gordon, E. C., Frans, R. E., Talbert, R. E., and Waddle, B. A. 1979. Effects of preplant incorporated dinitroaniline herbicides and cover crop systems on cotton. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 836. 30 pp.Google Scholar
8. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1975. Preplanting applications of diuron with and without trifluralin in cotton. Weed Sci. 23:75–77.Google Scholar
9. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1976. Preplanting application of dinitroanilines in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:51–53.Google Scholar
10. Hobson, R. 1970. Tennessee Agricultural Statistics. Tennessee Crop Reporting Serv. Bull. T-7. 71 pp.Google Scholar
11. Hobson, R. 1979. Tennessee Agricultural Statistics. Tennessee Crop Reporting Serv. Bull. T-16. 68 pp.Google Scholar
12. Jackson, A. W., Jeffery, L. S., and McCutchen, T. C. 1970. Tolerance of soybeans (Glycine max) and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to fluometuron residue. Weed Sci. 26:454–458.Google Scholar
13. Jeffery, L. S., Connell, J. T., McCutchen, T. C., and Overton, J. R. 1979. Control of prickly sida in cotton in Tennessee. Tennessee Farm and Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 109:13–17.Google Scholar
14. Koehn, M. L. 1978. Agricultural Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 605 pp.Google Scholar
15. Mullins, J. A. 1973. Ground application of a preemergence herbicide with foaming nozzles. Tennessee Farm and Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 87:26–27.Google Scholar
16. Oliver, L. R. and Frans, R. E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.Google Scholar
17. Overton, J. R., Jeffrey, E. S., Chambers, A. Y., and McCutchen, T. C. 1972. A comparison of preemergence herbicides for cotton. Tennessee Farm and Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 84:16–19.Google Scholar
18. Overton, J. R., Mullins, J. A., and Andrews, H. 1969. Combined applications of preemergence herbicides for weed control in cotton. Tennessee Farm and Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 71:12–15.Google Scholar
19. Parka, S. J. and Tepe, J. B. 1969. The disappearance of trifluralin from field soils. Weed Sci. 17:119–122.Google Scholar
20. Weaver, J. B. Jr., Miller, J., and Weaver, D. 1978. Tolerance and weed control response of three cotton genotypes to three levels of two dinitroanilines herbicides. Dep. Agron. Res. Bull. 213. Univ. of Georgia. 13 pp.Google Scholar