Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:43:02.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Growth Stage on Cotton Response to a Sublethal Concentration of Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2018

John T. Buol ,
Daniel B. Reynolds Open the ORCID record for Daniel B. Reynolds [Opens in a new window] ,
Darrin M. Dodds ,
J. Anthony Mills ,
Robert L. Nichols ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Johnie N. Jenkins  and
Janice L. DuBien
John T. Buol
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Darrin M. Dodds
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
J. Anthony Mills
Affiliation:
Technology Development Representative, Monsanto Company, Collierville, TN, USA
Robert L. Nichols
Affiliation:
Senior Director, Cotton Incorporated, Cary, NC, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS, USA
Johnie N. Jenkins
Affiliation:
Director, USDA-ARS Crop Science Research Lab, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Janice L. DuBien
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Statistics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel B. Reynolds, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, 32 Creelman Street, Mississippi State, MS 39762. (Email: dreynolds@pss.msstate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The introduction of auxin herbicide weed control systems has led to increased occurrence of crop injury in susceptible soybeans and cotton. Off-target exposure to sublethal concentrations of dicamba can occur at varying growth stages, which may affect crop response. Field experiments were conducted in Mississippi in 2014, 2015, and 2016 to characterize cotton response to a sublethal concentration of dicamba equivalent to 1/16X the labeled rate. Weekly applications of dicamba at 35 g ae ha−1 were made to separate sets of replicated plots immediately following planting until 14 wk after emergence (WAE). Exposure to dicamba from 1 to 9 WAE resulted in up to 32% visible injury, and exposure from 7 to 10 WAE delayed crop maturity. Exposure from 8 to 10 and 13 WAE led to increased cotton height, while an 18% reduction in machine-harvested yield resulted from exposure at 6 WAE. Cotton exposure at 3 to 9 WAE reduced the seed cotton weight partitioned to position 1 fruiting sites, while exposure at 3 to 6 WAE also reduced yield in position 2 fruiting sites. Exposure at 2, 3, and 5 to 7 WAE increased the percent of yield partitioned to vegetative branches. An increase in percent of yield partitioned to plants with aborted terminals occurred following exposure from 3 to 7 WAE and corresponded with reciprocal decreases in yield partitioned to positional fruiting sites. Minimal effects were observed on fiber quality, except for decreases in fiber length uniformity resulting from exposure at 9 and 10 WAE.

Keywords

Lawrence E. Steckel, University of TennesseeDicambacottonGossypium hirsutum L.soybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrAuxincohortexposure timingmaturityyield partitioning
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Buol JT, Reynolds DB, Dodds DM, Mills JA, Nichols RL, Bond JA, Jenkins JN, DuBien JL (2018) Effect of growth stage on cotton response to a sublethal concentration of dicamba. Weed Technol 33:1–8. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.95

References

Anonymous (2013) The Classification of Cotton. Cary, NC: Cotton Incorporated. 32 pGoogle Scholar
Bednarz, CW, Nichols, RL (2005) Phenological and morphological components of cotton crop maturity. Crop Sci 45:1497–1503 Google Scholar
Behrens, R, Lueschen, WEW (1979) Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci 27:486–493 Google Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188 Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 Google Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. In Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime, and Pest Management Conference: Madison, WI. 5 p.Google Scholar
Bourland, FM, Oosterhuis, DM, Tugwell, NP (1992) Concept for monitoring the growth and development of cotton plants using main-stem node counts. J Plant Ag 5:532–538 Google Scholar
Bovey, RW, Meyer, RE (1981) Effects of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid on crop seedling. Weed Sci 29:256–261 Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2017) Update on dicamba-related injury investigations and estimates of injured soybean acreage. Integrated Pest and Crop Management Newsletter, November 30, 2017. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2017/10/final_report_dicamba_injured_soybean/. Accessed: March 27, 2018Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three- factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 Google Scholar
Cundiff, GT, Reynolds, DB, Thomas, W, Mueller, T (2017) Evaluation of dicamba persistence among various agricultural hose types and cleanout procedures using soybean (Glycine max) as a bio-indicator. Weed Sci 65:305–316 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 Google Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506 Google Scholar
Feng, CC, Brinker, RJ, inventors; Monsanto Company, assignee (2014) January 14. Methods for weed control using plants transformed with dicamba monooxygenase. US patent publication number US8629328 B2Google Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Huff, JA, Dodds, DM, Irby, JT, Reynolds, DB (2010) Effect of glyphosate on fruit partitioning in early and late maturing bollgard II/roundup ready flex cotton varieties. J Cotton Sci 14:46–52 Google Scholar
Jenkins, JN, McCarty, JC, Parrot, WL (1990) Effectiveness of fruiting sites in cotton yield. Crop Sci 30:365–369 Google Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton peanut and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 Google Scholar
Kerby, TA, Supak, J, Banks, JC, Snipes, C (1992) Timing defoliation using nodes above cracked boll. Pages 155–156 in Herber DJ, Richter DA, eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference Nashville, TN, January 6–10, 1992. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America Google Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 22:609–614 Google Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992 Google Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:75–84 Google Scholar
Richburg, JS, Wright, JR, Braxton, LB, Robinson, AE, inventors; Dow Agrosciences, assignee (2012) July 12. Increased tolerance of DHT-enabled plants to auxinic herbicides resulting from moiety differences in auxinic molecule structures. US patent 13,345,236Google 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 18:1125–1134 Google Scholar
Smith, CL, Irby, JT, Reynolds, DB, Bruce, LM, Willers, JL (2012) The effect of drift rates of dicamba on spectral reflectance, growth, and yield of cotton. Page 116 in 2012 Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Volume 65. Charleston, SC: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2017) Cotton Varieties Planted 2017 Crop. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. P 3 Google Scholar
Walker, TW, Bond, JA, Ottis, BV, Gerard, PD, Harrell, DL (2008) Hybrid rice response to nitrogen fertilization for midsouthern United States rice production. Agron J 100:381–386 Google Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20240–20245 Google Scholar
Yang, RC (2010) Towards understanding and use of mixed-model analysis of agricultural experiments. Can J Plant Sci 90:605–627 Google Scholar