Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:24:25.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton response to preplant applications of 2,4-D or dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2019

Katilyn Price ,
Xiao Li Open the ORCID record for Xiao Li [Opens in a new window] ,
Ramon G. Leon  and
Andrew Price
Katilyn Price
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Xiao Li*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Ramon G. Leon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crops and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Andrew Price
Affiliation:
Plant Physiologist, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Auburn, AL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Xiao Li, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sensitive cotton varieties planted into soil treated with 2,4-D or dicamba utilized in burndowns can result in stunting and stand loss if use rate is too high and the plant-back interval is too short. The objective of this study was to evaluate cotton stunting and yield responses resulting from 2,4-D or dicamba residues in soil after preplant burndown applications at three locations in 2016 and 2017. Treatments with 2,4-D included 532 and 1,063 g ae ha−1 applied 3 wk before planting (WBP) and 53, 160, 266, 532, 1,063 g ae ha−1 applied at planting. Dicamba treatments included 560 and 1,120 g ae h−1 applied 3 WBP and 56, 168, 280, 560, 1,120 g ae ha−1 applied at planting. Dicamba or 2,4-D treatments applied 3 WBP resulted in no adverse effects on cotton stand, plant height, or yield. Dicamba 560 g ae h−1 applied at planting reduced cotton stand by 36% at 21 to 24 d after planting (DAP) over all locations in 2016. In 2017, stands were reduced by dicamba at 168, 280, 560, and 1,120 g ae ha−1 by 17% to 25% at 20 to 23 DAP. Moreover, cotton stands were not affected by 2,4-D in 2016, and only 266, 532, and 1,063 g ae ha−1 of 2,4-D caused stand reductions of 26% to 36% at 20 to 23 DAP over all locations in 2017. Dicamba at 560 g ae ha−1 at planting was the only treatment in this study that reduced plant height. Although stand losses were observed in both years, no yield loss occurred. The data suggest that stunting and stand reduction may occur if susceptible varieties are planted soon after burndown applications with 2,4-D or dicamba, but yield may not be affected after a full growing season. Dicamba showed greater potential to cause stunting and stand reduction than 2,4-D.

Keywords

2,4-DdicambacottonGossypium hirsutum LStuntingstand reductionplant heightyield loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 96 - 100
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Altom, JD, Stritzke, JF (1973) Degradation of dicamba, picloram, and four phenoxy herbicides in soils. Weed Sci 21:556–560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Clarity label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF The Chemical Company. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld797012.pdf Accessed: February 23, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) Amine 4 2,4-D LV4 label. St. Paul, MN: Winfield Solution. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld40K000.pdf Accessed: February 23, 2018Google Scholar
Baker, RS (1993) Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to preplant-applied hormone-type herbicides. Weed Technol 7:150–153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boman, R, Lemon, R (2007) Making replant decisions in cotton. Agrilife Extension. Texas Cooperative Extension. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System. http://publications.tamu.edu/COTTON/PUB_cotton_Making%20Replant%20Decisions%20in%20Cotton.pdf. Accessed: October 24, 2019Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Carlson, DS, York, AC (2005) Pre-plant control of cutleaf eveningprimrose (Oenothera laciniata) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J Cotton Sci 9:223–228 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, TW (2007) Weed control and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to preplant applications of dicamba, 2,4-D, and diflufenzopyr plus dicamba. Weed Technol 21:506–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, TW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G (1996) Banvel SGF for preplant weed control in cotton. Pages 48–49 in Proceedings of 1996 Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Guy, CB, Ashcraft, RW (1996) Horseweed and cutleaf eveningprimrose in no-till cotton. Page 1557 in Proceedings of 1996 Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Krueger, JP, Butz, RG, Cook, DJ (1991). Aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism of dicamba. J Agric Food Chem 36:995–999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Classen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paszko, T, Muszyński, P, Materska, M, Bojanowska, M, Kostecka, M, Jackowska, I (2016) Adsorption and degradation of phenoxyalkanoic acid herbicides in soils: a review. Environ Toxicol Chem 35:271–286 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, MA, McMaster, SA, Riechers, DE, Skelton, J, Stahlman, PW (2016) 2,4-D past, present, and future: a review. Weed Technol 30:303–345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, D, Crawford, S, Jordan, D (2000) Cutleaf eveningprimsrose control with preplant burndown and herbicide combinations in cotton. J Cotton Sci 4:124–129 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supak, J, Boman, R (1999) Effects of stands loss and skips on cotton yields. Agrilife Extension. Texas Cooperative Extension. College Station, TX: The Texas A&M University System Google Scholar
Voos, G, Groffman, PM (1997) Dissipation of 2,4-D and dicamba in a heterogeneous landscape. Appl Soil Ecol 5:181–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, J (1999) Environmental Fate of 2,4-Dichlorphenoxyacetic Acid. Sacramento, CA: Department of Pesticide Regulation. 18 pGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RD, Geronimo, J, Armbruster, JA (1997) 2,4-D dissipation in field soils after applications of 2,4-D dimethylamine salt and 2,4-D 2-ethylhexyl ester. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1239–1246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, AC, Culpepper, AS, Stewart, AM (2004) Response of strip-tilled cotton to preplant applications of dicamba and 2,4-D. J Cotton Sci 8:213–222 Google Scholar