Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:29:43.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tobacco Response to Residual and In-Season Treatments of CGA-362622

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dunk Porterfield ,
Loren R. Fisher ,
John W. Wilcut  and
W. David Smith
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Loren R. Fisher
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
W. David Smith
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to determine tobacco tolerance to CGA-362622 applied pretransplant (PRE-T) and postemergence (POST) to tobacco and applied the previous year preemergence (PRE) and POST to cotton. CGA-362622 applied at 3.75 or 7.5 g ai/ha PRE-T injured ‘K326’ flue-cured tobacco 1%, whereas POST treatments resulted in 4 to 5% injury. Tobacco injury was transient with no mid- or late-season injury noted. Tobacco yields from all CGA-362622 POST treatments were not different from the nontreated weed-free check. Tobacco treated with 7.5 g/ha CGA-362622 PRE-T yielded greater than nontreated weed-free tobacco or tobacco treated with CGA-362622 POST. When grown in rotation, tobacco was not injured, and yields were not influenced by CGA-362622 applied PRE or POST to cotton the previous year.

Keywords

CGA-362622cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L.Carryovercrop injurysulfonylurea herbicideALS, acetolactate synthaseLAYBY, late POST-directedPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergencePRE-T, pretransplant
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 1 - 5
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

Anonymous. 1998. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth. Pp. 22–30.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
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
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavey, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:820–824.Google Scholar
Brown, B. A. 2001. Flue-cured tobacco situation and outlook. in Flue-Cured Tobacco Information 2001. Publication No. AG-187. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Physiological basis for antagonism of clethodim by CGA 3626222. 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. 16:749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 251–294.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
Fisher, L. R. and Smith, W. D. 1999. 1999 Flue-Cured Tobacco Information. Publication No. AG-187. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. Pp. 50–68.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S. Jr. and Komm, D. A. 1987. Effect of rate and timing of imazaquin application on the growth and yield of the flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco Sci 30:1–4.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA-362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:163–165.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Johnson, D. H., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1993b. Carryover of DPX-PE350 to grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and soybean (Glycine max) on two Arkansas soils. Weed Technol. 7:645–649.Google Scholar
McElroy, J. S., Yelverton, F. H., Troxler, S. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Selective exposure of yellow (Cyperus esculentus) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) to postemergence treatments of CGA-362622, imazaquin, and MSMA. Weed Technol. 17:554–559.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 7:153–155.Google Scholar
McLean, H. S., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, A. E. 2001. Influence of norflurazon placement on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus escultentus). Weed Technol. 15:327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:353–359.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Peedin, G. F. 2000. 2000 Flue-cured Tobacco Information. Publication No. AG-187. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 29–137.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response to residual and in-season treatments of CGA-362622. Weed Technol. 17:441–445.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. 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., Wells, J. W., and Clewis, S. B. 2003. Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 51:1002–1009.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988a. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988b. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Mixtures of CGA 362622 and bromoxynil for broadleaf weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:496–502.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. T., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 51:13–18.Google Scholar
Walls, F. R. Jr., Corbin, F. T., Collins, W. K., Worsham, A. D., and Bradley, J. R. Jr. 1993. Imazaquin absorption, translocation, and metabolism in flue-cured tobacco. Weed Technol. 7:370–375.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Influence of pyrithiobac sodium on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 46:111–115.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. in Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 627–661.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