Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:28:55.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of the Application of Varying Rates of CMU at Different Stages of Plant Growth and Fiber Development on the Yield and Fiber Quality of Irrigated Upland Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. H. Everson  and
H. F. Arle
E. H. Everson
Affiliation:
Field Crops Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
H. F. Arle
Affiliation:
Field Crops Research Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
Get access

Extract

Selective postemergence spraying of cotton in the western irrigated areas for control of weeds has not been widely practiced because of the lack of adequate herbicides and little knowledge of the effect of varying rates of the more promising herbicides on the growth, yield and fiber quality of cotton.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1956 , pp. 148 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © 1956 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

1. Anonymous. Better Cotton. U.S.D.A., Div. of Cotton and Other Fiber Crops and Diseases Report., pp. 895–964. 1947.Google Scholar
2. Arle, H. F., and Everson, E. H. The control of annual morning glory and summer grasses in cotton with CMU. Proc. So. Weed Conf., 7:64–69. 1954.Google Scholar
3. Bucha, H. C., and Todd, C. W. 3–(p–chlorophenyl)–1, 1–dimethylurea—a new herbicide. Science, 114:493–494. 1951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Foy, C. L., Hoyt, J., and Leonard, O. A. Comparative efficiency of CMU and other residual type herbicidesapplied at lay-by time for late season weed control in irrigated cotton. Proc. So. Weed Conf., 7:93–96. 1954.Google Scholar
5. Haun, J. R., and Peterson, J. H. Translocation of 3–(p–chlorophenyl)–1, 1–dimethylurea in plants. (Abstract). Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf., pp. 28–29. 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Loustalot, A. J., Cruzado, H. J., and Muzik, T. J. Effect of CMU on nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus L.) Weeds, 2:196–201. 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Normand, W. C., Ratcliff, R. Y., and Creasy, L. E. Pre-and post-emergence studies for chemical weed control in cotton. Proc. So. Weed Conf. 5:64–69. 1953.Google Scholar
8. Rea, H. E. Post-emergence use of residual-type herbicides in cotton. Progr. Rept. Texas Agric. Expt. Sta. No. 1509, pp. 1–2. 1952.Google Scholar
9. Stamper, E. R., Smilie, J. L., and Haddon, C. B. Pre-and post-emergence herbicides for weed control in cotton. Agric. Newsletter—Dupont. 21:62–64. 1953.Google Scholar