Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T08:33:38.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Accepted manuscript

Optimizing Pyroxasulfone-Coated Fertilizer in Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2025

Brock A. Dean*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Charles W. Cahoon
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Guy D. Collins
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Zachary R. Taylor
Affiliation:
Research Specialist, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Jacob C. Forehand
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Jose S. de Sanctis
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
James H. Lee
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Brock A. Dean; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Two studies were conducted in 2022 and 2023 near Rocky Mount and Clayton, NC, to determine the optimal granular ammonium sulfate (AMS) rate and application timing for pyroxasulfone-coated AMS. In the rate study, AMS rates included 161, 214, 267, 321, 374, 428, and 481 kg ha-1, equivalent to 34, 45, 56, 67, 79, 90, and 101 kg N ha-1, respectively. All rates were coated with pyroxasulfone at 118 g ai ha-1 and top-dressed onto 5- to 7-leaf cotton. In the timing study, pyroxasulfone (118 g ai ha-1) was coated on AMS and top-dressed at 321 kg ha-1 (67 kg N ha-1) onto 5- to 7-leaf, 9- to 11-leaf, and first bloom cotton. In both studies, weed control and cotton tolerance to pyroxasulfone-coated AMS was compared to pyroxasulfone applied postemergence (POST) and postemergence-directed (POST-directed). The check in both studies received non-herbicide-treated AMS (321 kg ha-1). Before treatment applications, all plots (including the check) were maintained weed-free with glyphosate and glufosinate. In both studies, pyroxasulfone applied POST was most injurious (8 to 16%), while pyroxasulfone-coated AMS resulted in ≤ 4% injury. Additionally, no differences in cotton lint yield were observed in both studies. With the exception of the lowest rate of AMS (161 kg ha-1; 79%), all AMS rates coated with pyroxasulfone controlled Palmer amaranth ≥ 83%, comparable to pyroxasulfone applied POST (92%) and POST-directed (89%). In the timing study, the application method did not affect Palmer amaranth control; however, applications made at the mid- and late timings outperformed early applications. These results indicate pyroxasulfone-coated AMS can control Palmer amaranth comparable to pyroxasulfone applied POST and POST-directed, with minimal risk of cotton injury. However, the application timing could warrant additional treatment to achieve adequate late-season weed control.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America