Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T00:39:49.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Malathion Timing on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Pyrithiobac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles E. Snipes  and
Simone Seifert
Charles E. Snipes*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS 38776
Simone Seifert
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box 9555, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: csnipes@drec.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted from 1994 through 1996 to determine the effect timing of malathion applications have on cotton response relative to postemergence applications of pyrithiobac. Treatments were initiated approximately 1 mo after planting (four to six leaves) and included pyrithiobac at 70 g ae/ha applied alone or in combination or with malathion applied at 1 or 3 d before and at 1 or 3 d after pyrithiobac. At 7 d after treatment (DAT), pyrithiobac plus malathion applied in combination caused 34, 28, and 21% cotton injury in 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. Malathion applied 1 d before pyrithiobac resulted in 18% injury in 1994, 11% in 1995, and 15% injury in 1996, whereas malathion applied 1 d after pyrithiobac injured cotton 15 and 11% in 1994 and 1996, respectively. Injury of cotton subjected to malathion applied 3 d before pyrithiobac was not different from pyrithiobac applied alone. When malathion was applied 3 d after pyrithiobac, injury occurred only in 1995. At 14 and 21 DAT, the combination of pyrithiobac plus malathion caused the most cotton injury. Seed cotton yield was not adversely affected by any treatment when compared with pyrithiobac applied alone.

Keywords

Malathion, O,O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate of diethyl mercaptosuccinatepyrithiobaccotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DES 119’, ‘DPL 50’Crop injuryinsecticideinteractionpesticidetimingDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 266 - 268
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

Allen, R. L. and Snipes, C. E. 1995. Interactions of foliar insecticides applied with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 9: 512–517.Google Scholar
Bowling, C. C. and Hudgins, H. R. 1966. The effect of insecticides on the selectivity of propanil on rice. Weeds 14: 94–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacskaylo, J. K., Walker, J. K. Jr., and Pires, E. G. 1964. Response of cotton seedlings to combinations of preemergence herbicides and systemic insecticides. Weeds 12: 288–291.Google Scholar
Hatfield, L. D. and Mitchell, H. R. 1992. Command 4EC herbicide: incorporation into cotton weed management programs. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 16: 1318.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1: 1–63.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7: 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. DPX-PE350 does not interact with early-season insecticides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 7: 92–86.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1993. Effects of DPX-PE350 on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth, yield, and fiber quality. Weed Technol. 7: 930–933.Google Scholar
Kreuz, K. and Fonné-Pfister, R. 1992. Herbicide-insecticide interactions on maize: malathion inhibits cytochrome P340-dependent primisulfuron metabolism. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 43: 232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, R. G. 1967. Phytotoxic pesticide interactions in soil. Agron. J. 59: 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankle, M. W., Hayes, R. M., Reich, V. H., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. MSMA and pyrithiobac effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development, yield, and quality. Weed Sci. 44: 137–142.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Allen, R. L., Shaw, D. R., Guy, C. B., Wells, R., and Crowder, S. H. 1992. Fruiting response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 11: 59–63.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Frans, R. E. 1991. Insecticides modify cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) response to clomazone. Weed Technol. 5: 729–735.Google Scholar