Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:20:37.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insecticides Do Not Affect Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Imazaquin and Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Alan C. York  and
John W. Wilcut
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse experiments evaluated interactions of soil-applied insecticides and imazaquin and imazethapyr on growth and development of cotton. Imazaquin and imazethapyr were applied PPI at 0 to 6 and 0 to 16 g ae ha−1, respectively, in the greenhouse (plus a no-insecticide control), and 0 to 72 g ha−1 in the field in combination with aldicarb, disulfoton, and phorate (without a no-insecticide control) applied in the seed furrow. Cotton shoot fresh weight in the greenhouse experiment decreased linearly as herbicide rates increased. Greater reductions in shoot fresh weight were noted with imazaquin than with imazethapyr. Compared with no insecticide, the methylcarbamate insecticide aldicarb and the organophosphate insecticides disulfoton and phorate did not affect cotton response to either herbicide. In the field, cotton injury increased while stand, yield, and maturity decreased as herbicide rates increased. Delayed maturity was due to a lower percentage of bolls produced on sympodia from main stem nodes four to nine. Imazaquin caused greater injury, greater reductions in stand, greater delays in maturity, and lower yields than did imazethapyr. Earlier maturity was noted with aldicarb-treated cotton. Compared with aldicarb, disulfoton and phorate did not alter cotton response to imazaquin or imazethapyr.

Keywords

Aldicarb, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl)oximedisulfoton, O,O-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioateimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidphorate, O,O-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio)-methyl phosphorodithioatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum (L.) ‘Deltapine 90’, ‘Stoneville Coker 304’, ‘Stoneville KC 380’, and ‘Stoneville McNair 235’Pesticide interactionsmaturityplant mappingfiber qualityaldicarbdisulfotonphorate
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 269 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. 1980. The Classification of Cotton. U. S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Marketing Serv., Agric. Handb. No. 566. 37 pp.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1992. Crop Production. U. S. Dep. Agric. Publ. No. CR PR 2-1 (92). 22 pp.Google Scholar
3. Arle, H. F. 1968. Trifluralin-systemic insecticide interactions on seedling cotton. Weed Sci. 16:430–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:820–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Barnes, C. J. and Lavy, T. L. 1991. Injury and yield response of selected crops to imazaquin and norflurazon residues. Weed Technol. 5:598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Basham, G., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Bhalla, P., Hackett, N., Hart, R., and Lignowski, E. 1991. Imazaquin herbicide. Pages 237–245 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
8. Brown, J. M. 1987. Cotton fruiting habits and agronomic descriptions of short-season production systems. Pages 72–73 in Nelson, T. C., ed. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Conf., Dallas, TX. January 4–8, 1987. Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
9. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Corbin, F. T., York, A. C., and Worsham, A. D. 1990. Response of cotton and corn to combinations of imazaquin and imazethapyr with organophosphate insecticide-nematicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:355.Google Scholar
11. Curran, W. S., Knake, E. L., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Corn (Zea mays) injury following use of clomazone, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. El-Dodo, M. K., Corbin, F. T., and Worsham, A. D. 1988. Interaction effects of lactofen and fenamiphos on cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:86.Google Scholar
13. Flint, J. L. and Witt, W. W. 1988. Soil temperature and moisture effects on imazaquin and imazethapyr degradation. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:338.Google Scholar
14. Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Hake, K. D., Bourland, F. M., and Kerby, T. A. 1991. Early season management: How can plant mapping help? Pages 100–102 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–12, 1991. Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
16. Hart, R., Lignowski, E., and Taylor, F. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. Pages 247–256 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
17. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
18. Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1990. Effect of imazaquin residues on growth and yield of cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:413.Google Scholar
19. Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Effect of imazaquin residues on growth and yield of cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:409.Google Scholar
20. Johnson, D. H., Talbert, R. E., and Horton, D. K. 1990. Duration of imazaquin activity on cotton, rice, corn, and grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:418.Google Scholar
21. Leser, J. L. 1986. Thrips management: problems and progress. Pages 175–178 in Nelson, T. C., ed. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Las Vegas, NV. January 4–9, 1986. Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
22. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Malefyt, T. and Quakenbush, L. 1991. Influence of environmental factors on the biological activity of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 103–127 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
24. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop page soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1991. Dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr under conventional and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:586–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39:629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Nester, P. R., Grichar, W. J., and Colburn, A. E. 1991. Imazethapyr control of nutsedge (Cyperes spp.) in south Texas peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:140.Google Scholar
28. Perry, K. E. and Barrett, M. 1990. Chlorimuron and imazaquin bioavailability in southern soils. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:403.Google Scholar
29. Renner, K. A., Meggit, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Response of corn (Zea mays) cultivars to imazaquin. Weed Sci. 36:625–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1991. Response of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) to herbicide residues in soil. Weed Technol. 5:622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Reynolds, D. B., Burris, E., Leonard, B. R., and Stephens, M. 1991. Interaction of sulfonylurea herbicides with in-furrow applications of organophosphate insecticides in corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:103.Google Scholar
33. Russelle, M. P., Wilhelm, W. W., Olson, R. A., and Power, J. F. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Sasser, P. E. 1981. The basics of high volume instruments for fiber testing. Pages 191–193 in Brown, J. M., ed. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., New Orleans, LA. January 4–8, 1981. Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
35. Turner, J. H. Jr., Worley, S., Ramey, H. H. Jr., Hoskins, P. E., and Stewart, J. M. 1979. Relationship of week of flowering and parameters of boll yield in cotton. Agron. J. 71:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Wilcut, J. W. and Walls, F. R. 1989. Imazethapyr for broadleaf weed control in Virginia peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 21:57.Google Scholar
37. York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Frans, R. E. 1991. Insecticides modify cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to clomazone. Weed Technol. 5:729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar