Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:34:36.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MSMA and Pyrithiobac Effects on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Development, Yield and Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark W. Shankle ,
Robert M. Hayes ,
Vernon H. Reich  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Mark W. Shankle
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Vernon H. Reich
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Dep. of Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
*
Address Correspondence to: Tom Mueller, P.O. Box 1071, Knoxville, TN 37901.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted in Tennessee at Jackson in 1991 and at Milan in 1992 to compare the effect of MSMA and pyrithiobac on cotton development, yield, and quality. In separate treatments to different plots, pyrithiobac at 0.14 kg ai ha–1 did not affect development, yield, and quality of cotton. MSMA at 2.24 kg ai ha–1 decreased cotton plant internode length 10 to 15% and height by 15% 5 wk after late treatment both years. MSMA applied to 50 cm cotton reduced subsequent plant height in 1992, but other plant characteristics were not affected. In 1991, MSMA increased squares and decreased blooms and bolls for monopodia and sympodia position one and two, which suggested a delay in plant development. In 1991, mechanical harvest lint yields were decreased by MSMA at first harvest while increasing second harvest lint yields. However, in 1991 only MSMA applied late decreased total harvest lint yield 20%. Plant mapping data determined that the yield decrease was a result of decreased yields at sympodia positions one and two. Cotton seed arsenic analysis indicated that MSMA-late increased arsenic levels by ≈ 1 ppmw in 1991 for sympodia at position one and two compared to the untreated check, while position two contained the highest level of 1.8 ppmw.

Keywords

MSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsenic acidpyrithiobac, [sodium salt of 2-chloro-6-[(4,5-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)thio]benzoic acid]cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Deltapine 50.’DPX-PE350monopodiasympodiaplant mappingmaturity
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 137 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Allen, R. L., Snipes, C. E., and Crowder, S. H. 1993. Fruiting response of cotton following applications of pyrithiobac. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46: 68.Google Scholar
2. Altom, J. V., Baysinger, J. A., Jacobson, B. D. and Murray, D. S. 1991. Evaluation of DPX-PE350 for weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44: 74 Google Scholar
3. Baker, R. S., Arle, H. F., Miller, J. H., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1969. Effects of organic arsenical herbicides on cotton response and chemical residues. Weed Sci. 17: 37–40.Google Scholar
4. Haigler, W. E., Gossett, B. J., Harris, J. R., and Toler, J. E. 1988. Resistance of Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) to the organic arsenical herbicides. Weed Sci. 36: 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hayes, R. M., Shankle, M. W., and Shelby, P. P. 1993. Documentation and control of DSMA/MSMA resistant common cocklebur. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1526 pp.Google Scholar
6. Holshauser, D. L. and Chandler, J. M. 1991. Susceptibility of eight morningglory species to DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44: 78.Google Scholar
7. Jeffery, L. S., McCutchen, T., and Hoskinson, P. E. 1972. Effects of DSMA and MSMA on cotton. Tenn. Farm and Home Sci. 84: 19–21.Google Scholar
8. Jenkins, J. N., McCarty, J. C. Jr., and Parrott, W. L. 1990. Effects of fruiting sites in cotton: yield. Crop Sci. 30: 365–369.Google Scholar
9. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E. and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7: 159–162.Google Scholar
10. Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1993. Effects of DPX PE350 on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth, yield, and fiber quality. Weed Technol. 7: 930–933.Google Scholar
11. Kohel, R. J., and Lewis, C. F. Cotton. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1984 p. 356.Google Scholar
12. Mitchell, W. H., Crowder, S. H. and Williams, C. S. 1992. “STAPLE” Anew cotton herbicide from Du Pont. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. p. 1318 Google Scholar
13. Shelby, P. P. 1995. Cotton production in Tennessee. Univ. of Tenn. Exten. Pub. 1514, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
14. Snipes, C. E. and Allen, R. L. 1992. Broadleaf weed control in cotton with DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 26.Google Scholar
15. Snipes, C. E. and Byrd, J. D. 1994. The influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci. 42: 210–215.Google Scholar
16. Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1992. Differential tolerance of several morningglory species to DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 47.Google Scholar
17. Wiese, A. F. and Hudspeth, E. B. Jr. 1968. Effects of DSMA and MSMA on cotton yield and arsenic content of cottonseed. Texas Agricultural Bulletin MP-877.Google Scholar
18. Wills, G. D., Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Hurst, H. R. 1992. Herbicide resistant and tolerant weeds. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 43.Google Scholar