Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:25:33.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton Growth and Yield Response to Simulated 2,4-D and Dicamba Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John D. Everitt  and
J. Wayne Keeling
John D. Everitt
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLIFE Research Center, 1102 E FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403
J. Wayne Keeling*
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLIFE Research Center, 1102 E FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in Hale Co., TX, in 2005 and 2006 to determine the effects of 2,4-D amine and dicamba applied at varying rates and growth stages on cotton growth and yield, and to correlate cotton injury levels and lint yield reductions. Dicamba or 2,4-D amine was applied at four growth stages including cotyledon to two-leaf, four- to five-leaf, pinhead square, and early bloom. Dicamba and 2,4-D amine were applied at 1/2, 1/20, 1/200, and 1/2000 of the recommended use rate. Crop injury was recorded at 14 days after treatments and late-season, and cotton lint yields were determined. Across all growth stages, 2,4-D caused more crop injury and yield loss than dicamba. Cotton lint was reduced more by later applications (especially pinhead square) and injury underestimated yield loss with 2,4-D. Visual estimates of injury overestimated yield loss when 2,4-D or dicamba was applied early (cotyledon to two leaf) and was not a good predictor of yield loss.

Keywords

Dicamba2,4-Dcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘FiberMax 960 BR’Crop injuryherbicide drift
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 503 - 506
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Al-Khatib, K., Classen, M. M., Stahlman, P. W., Geier, P. W., Regehr, D. L., Duncan, S. R., and Heer, W. F. 2003. Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261–265.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992a. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol 6:956–960.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992b. Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol 6:975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2005. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: January 25, 2007.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2002. Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol 16:833–837.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E. 1987. Spray application technology. Pages 85–110. in McWhorter, C. G. and Gebhardt, M. R. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., Linscombe, S. D., and Williams, B. J. 2006. Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol 20:113–117.Google Scholar
Deeds, Z. A., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Stahlman, P. W. 2006. Wheat response to simulated drift of glyphosate and imazamox applied at two growth stages. Weed Technol 20:23–31.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:580–586.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. D. and Keeling, J. W. 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.Google Scholar
Ghosheh, H. Z., Prostko, E. P., Tingle, C. H., and Chandler, J. M. 2002. Simulated pyrithiobac drift effects on corn (Zea mays) and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Crop Prot 21:529–532.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1979. Response of cotton to dicamba. Weed Sci 27:604–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci 30:311–315.Google Scholar
Marple, M. E., Shoup, D., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2007. Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992.Google Scholar
Sawchuk, J. W., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2006. Influence of a range of dosages of MCPA, glyphosate, and thifensulfuron: triburon (2:1) on conventional canola (Brassica napus) and white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) growth and yield. Weed Technol 20:184–197.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol 5:493–498.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci 40:106–109.Google Scholar
Smith, D. B., Harris, F. D., and Goering, C. E. 1982. Variables affecting drift from ground boom sprayers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 25:1499–1503.Google Scholar