Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-hb754 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-29T18:39:11.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cotton tolerance to halauxifen-methyl applied preplant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2019

M. Carter Askew
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech-Eastern Shore AREC, Painter, VA, USA
Charles W. Cahoon Jr.*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Professor Emeritus, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Michael L. Flessner
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
David B. Langston Jr.
Affiliation:
Professor and Director of Tidewater AREC, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech-Tidewater AREC, Suffolk, VA, USA
J. Harrison Ferebee IV
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech-Eastern Shore AREC, Painter, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Charles W. Cahoon Jr., Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695. Email: cwcahoon@ncsu.edu

Abstract

Auxin herbicides are used in combinations to control glyphosate-resistant horseweed preplant burndown. Herbicide labels for 2,4-D–containing products require a 30-d rotation interval for planting cotton cultivars not resistant to 2,4-D. Dicamba labels require an accumulation of 2.5 cm of rain plus 21 d per 280 g ae ha–1 rotation interval for planting cotton cultivars not resistant to dicamba. Previous research has shown that cotton injury caused by dicamba applied 14 d before planting was transient with little effect on cotton yield, whereas 2,4-D has little effect on cotton when applied 7 d prior to planting. Injury caused by dicamba and 2,4-D is inversely related to rainfall received between herbicide application and cotton planting. Experiments were conducted to evaluate cotton tolerance to halauxifen-methyl, a new Group 4 herbicide, applied at intervals shorter than labeled requirements. Experiments were established near Painter and Suffolk, VA, and Belvidere, Clayton, Eure, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC, during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons. Herbicide treatments included halauxifen, dicamba, and 2,4-D applied 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0 wk before planting (WBP). Visible estimates of cotton growth reduction and total injury were collected 1, 2, and 4 wk after cotton emergence (WAE). Cotton stand and percentage of plants with distorted leaves were recorded 2 and 4 WAE. Cotton plant heights were recorded 4 and 8 WAE. Halauxifen was less injurious (9%) than dicamba (26%) or 2,4-D (21%) 2 WAE when herbicides were applied 0 WBP. Cotton stand reduction 2 WAE by halauxifen was less than 2,4-D and dicamba when applied 0 WBP. Injury observed from herbicides applied 1, 2, 3, and 4 WBP was minor, and no significant differences in cotton stand were observed. Early-season cotton injury was transient, and seed cotton yield was unaffected by any treatment.

Type
Research Article
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

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Elevore™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldE1J001.pdf. Accessed: February 14, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) Quelex™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldDBL000.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018c) Barrage® HF herbicide product label. Helena Chemical Company, Collierville, TN. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.agrian.com/pdfs/Barrage_HF_Label1h.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018d) Salvo® herbicide product label. Loveland Products, Inc., Loveland, CO. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.agrian.com/pdfs/Salvo_Label5.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018e) Savage® herbicide product label. Loveland Products, Inc., Loveland, CO. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.agrian.com/pdfs/Savage_Label7.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018f) Weedar® 64 herbicide product label. Nufarm, Inc., Alsip, IL. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld08K001.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018g) Weedone® LV4 EC herbicide product label. Nufarm, Inc., Aslip, IL. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld5PB000.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018h) Enlist Duo™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldAEA005.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018i) Enlist One™ herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldE27000.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018j) Clarity® herbicide product label. BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld797012.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018k) Engenia® herbicide product label. BASF, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldDG8028.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018l) Xtendimax™ herbicide product label. Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldDF9006.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018m) FeXapan™ herbicide product label. DuPont, Wilmington, DE. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldDJ1002.pdf. Accessed: February 15, 2018Google Scholar
Askew, MC (2018) Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) termination and integration of halauxifen-methyl into Virginia cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production. M.S. thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech. 90 pGoogle Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, JA, Kells, JJ (1990) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 4:642647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW (2014) An alternative to multiple protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor applications in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 28:5871 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center (2008) National crop residue management survey: conservation tillage data. https://www.ctic.org/crm/. Accessed: April 26, 2019Google Scholar
Edmisten, K, Collins, G (2018) The cotton plant. Pages 5–15 in 2018 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Edmisten, K, Collins, G, Crozier, C, Meijer, A, York, A, Hardy, D, Reisig, D, Bullen, G, Thiessen, L, Vann, R (2018) 2018 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Walton, LC, Richburg, JS, Haygood, BA, Huckaba, RM, Lovelace, ML, Perry, DH, Peterson, MA (2017) Utility of Elevore™ herbicide with Arylex™ active for preplant burndown applications. Page 150 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society 70th Annual Meeting. Birmingham, AL. Las Cruces, NM: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Epp, JB, Alexander, AL, Balko, TW, Buysse, AM, Brewster, WK, Bryan, K, Daeuble, JF, Fields, SC, Gast, RE, Green, RA, Irvine, NM, Lo, WC, Lowe, CR, Renga, JM, Richburg, JS, Ruiz, JM, Satchivi, NM, Schmitzer, PR, Siddall, TL, Webster, JD, Wimer, MR, Whiteker, GT, Yerkes, CN (2016) The discovery of Arylex™ active and Rinskor™ active: two novel auxin herbicides. Bioorgan Med Chem 24:362371 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eubank, TW, Poston, DH, Nandula, VK, Koger, CH, Shaw, DR, Reynolds, DB (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control using glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs. Weed Technol 22:1621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G (1996) Banvel SGF for preplant weed control in cotton. Pages 48–49 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN. Memphis, TN: National Cotton CouncilGoogle Scholar
Flessner, ML, McElroy, JS, McCurdy, JD, Toombs, JM, Wehthe, GR, Burmester, CH, Price, AJ, Ducar, JT (2015) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control with dicamba in Alabama. Weed Technol 29:633640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, JM, Hatch, LU, Duffy, PA (1990) Effect of the 1985 farm bill provisions on farmers’ soil conservation decisions. South J Ag Econ 22:179189 Google Scholar
Guy, CB, Ashcraft, RW (1996) Horseweed and cutleaf eveningprimrose control in no-till cotton. Page 1557 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN. Memphis, TN: National Cotton CouncilGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds.http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/Species.aspx?WeedID=61. Accessed: February 28, 2018Google Scholar
Keeling, JW, Henniger, CG, Abernathy, JR (1989) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 3:399401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, KB, Wax, LM, Hager, AG, Riechers, DE (2005) Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG (2010) Control of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with growth regulator herbicides. Weed Technol 24:425429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, CL, Young, B (2016) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with halauxifen-methyl versus dicamba and 2,4-D. Page 37 in Proceedings of the 71st Annual North Central Weed Science Society, Des Moines, IA. Las Cruces, NM: North Central Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Mehlich, A (1984) Photometric determination of humic matter in soils, a proposed method. Commun Soil Sci Plan 15:14171422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisig, D (2019) Managing insects on cotton. Pages 134–152 in 2019 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Rhodes, GN, Israel, TD, Steckel, L (2015) Diagnosing suspected off-target herbicide damage to cotton. https://cotton.ces.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/UT-Diagnosing-Suspected-Off-target-Herbicide-Damage-to-Cotton.pdf?fwd=no. Accessed: November 21, 2018Google Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. I. Quantifying injury to cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:11251134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R, Shaw, DR, Barrentine, WL (1998) Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN 582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:2326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, CB, Bradley, KW (2014) Influence of application timings and sublethal rates of synthetic auxin herbicides on soybean. Weed Technol 28:454464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture––National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017a) 2017 State Agriculture Overview North Carolina. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=NORTH%20CAROLINA. Accessed: December 15, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture––National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017b) 2017 State Agriculture Overview Virginia. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=VIRGINIA. Accessed: December 15, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture––National Agricultural Statistics Service (2018) Quick Stats Cotton Yield Projection. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/012A7167-43D4-306F-8766-B0EF88E302D1. Accessed: December 15, 2018Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America (2018) Summary of herbicide mechanism of action according to WSSA. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/WSSA-Mechanism-of-Action.pdf. Accessed: February 13, 2018Google Scholar
Wilson, JS, Worsham, AD (1988) Combinations of nonselective herbicides for difficult to control weeds in no-till corn, Zea mays, and soybeans, Glycine max . Weed Sci 36:648652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, AC, Cahoon, CW (2018) Weed management in cotton. Pages 83–132 in 2018 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google 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 8:213222 Google Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018a) Herbicide programs utilizing halauxifen-methyl for glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in soybean. Weed Technol 32:659–654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, BG, Johnson, WG (2018b) Weed control with halauxifen-methyl applied alone and in mixtures with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate. Weed Technol 32:597602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar