Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T19:30:55.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Cotton with CGA-362622, Fluometuron, and Pyrithiobac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ian C. Burke  and
John W. Wilcut
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was conducted at five locations in North Carolina during 2000 and 2001 to evaluate weed control, crop injury, and cotton yield. Weed management systems included different combinations of pyrithiobac preemergence (PRE), fluometuron PRE, CGA-362622 postemergence (POST), pyrithiobac POST, and monosodium salt of methylarsonic acid (MSMA) plus prometryn applied late POST-directed (LAYBY). At Goldsboro in 2000, cotton was injured 74 to 78% by CGA-362622 POST when evaluated 4 to 7 d after treatment (DAT). Injury at Clayton, Goldsboro, and Lewiston in 2001 and Rocky Mount in 2000 was less than 16% 4 to 7 DAT with the same treatment and was not apparent by 62 DAT. CGA-362622 controlled common lambsquarters, common ragweed, Palmer amaranth, sicklepod, smooth pigweed, and Ipomoea species including entireleaf, ivyleaf, and pitted morningglory, and the addition of pyrithiobac to the herbicide system, either PRE or POST, increased control of Amaranthus species, jimsonweed, and prickly sida. CGA-362622 did not control jimsonweed or prickly sida. Fluometuron PRE, pyrithiobac PRE, and MSMA plus prometryn LAYBY were beneficial for increasing weed control and cotton lint yields. Prometryn plus MSMA LAYBY increased control of common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, jimsonweed, pitted morningglory, and smooth pigweed and provided higher cotton yields than similar systems without a LAYBY. The greatest weed control and greatest cotton lint yields required complete weed management systems that included a combination of PRE, POST, and LAYBY treatments.

Keywords

fluometuronmonosodium salt of methylarsonic acidprometrynpyrithiobaccommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmerii L. # AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHCrop injurycrop yieldDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byLAYBY, late postemergence directedMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 268 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1998. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth. Pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Staple®. Crop Protection Reference. 15th ed. New York: C & P. Pp. 857–861.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.Google Scholar
Bachelor, J. S. 2000. Managing insects in cotton. in Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 112–137.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., and Hayes, R. M. 2003. Weed management, fiber quality, and net returns in no-tillage transgenic and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, L. T., Reynolds, D. B., Sanders, J. C., Wison, D. G., Buehring, N. W., and Bloodworth, K. M. 2002. Weed control with CGA-362622 in Roundup Ready and BXN cotton systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:140.Google Scholar
Branson, J. W., Smith, K. L., Barrentine, J. L., and Namenek, R. C. 2002. Cotton phytotoxicity with trifloxysulfuron as influenced by soil moisture, temperature, and tankmixes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:29.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Physiological basis for antagonism of clethodim by CGA 362622. Weed Sci. 51:671–677.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:748–754.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 cotton weed loss committee. in Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. Pp. 837–840.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H. and Leake, K. D. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in genetically-altered cotton utilizing postemergence over-the-top applications of bromoxynil. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:79.Google Scholar
Crooks, L. C., York, A. C., and Culpepper, A. S. 2003. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:531–535.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devil's claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10:7–12.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. 2000. Planting decisions. in Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publication No. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 20–23.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. in Camper, E. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp 37–38.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: Wiley. Pp. 72–73.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr., Wells, J. W., and Hudetz, M. et al. 2000. CGA-362622 application timings, rates, and weed spectrum in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:240.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. K., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci. 3:132–138.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Cotton response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993c. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmerii). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596–601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 49:567–570.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Collins, J. R., and Hinton, J. D. 1998. Weed management with Buctril and Staple mixtures in BXN cotton. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 51:264–265.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002a. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002b. Weed control with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and chemical weed control systems. Weed Sci. 42:210–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:21–27.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. D. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L. and C. esculentus L). Weed Sci. 51:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 42:5.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. New York: CRC and Lewis. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Vencill, W. K., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221–226.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. in Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. in Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publication No. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 69–111.Google Scholar