Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:36:06.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dunk Porterfield ,
John W. Wilcut  and
Shawn D. Askew
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment conducted at five locations in North Carolina during 1998 and 1999 evaluated weed management systems in cotton with CGA-362622 and pyrithiobac. Weed management systems evaluated different combinations with or without fluometuron preemergence (PRE) followed by (fb) CGA-362622 early postemergence (EPOST), postemergence (POST), or EPOST + POST; or pyrithiobac EPOST fb prometryn plus MSMA late postemergence directed (LAYBY) or no LAYBY treatment. The weed species evaluated include common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, sicklepod, tall morningglory, and yellow nutsedge. Fluometuron PRE improved the control of all weed species by at least 17 percentage points and increased cotton lint yield compared with the systems that did not use fluometuron PRE. Prometryn plus MSMA LAYBY improved the control of all weed species and increased lint yield compared with the systems that did not use prometryn plus MSMA LAYBY when PRE or POST herbicides were used. Control with CGA-362622 at all application timings was greater than 70% for all weed species evaluated (common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, sicklepod, tall morningglory, and yellow nutsedge), except prickly sida. Control of all three morningglory species and prickly sida was at least 70% with pyrithiobac, whereas control of common ragweed, sicklepod, and yellow nutsedge was lower. The only cotton that yielded over 800 kg ha−1 was treated with fluometuron PRE fb CGA-362622 EPOST, POST, or EPOST + POST fb prometryn plus MSMA LAYBY. Cotton treated with pyrithiobac EPOST gave yields that were similar to those given by cotton treated with CGA-362622 EPOST in systems with fluometuron PRE and less than those given by cotton treated with CGA-362622 EPOST in systems without fluometuron PRE. Early-season injury with CGA-362622 was greater than 60% at Clayton and Rocky Mount in 1998, whereas 12% or less injury was observed at the other locations. Pyrithiobac resulted in 25 to 45% injury at these two locations. No injury was observed 45 d after treatment.

Keywords

CGA-362622fluometuronMSMAprometrynpyrithiobaccommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray IPOHGpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barnaby CASOBprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. SIDSPcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 474’
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 642 - 647
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., Snipes, C. E., and Crowder, S. H. 1997. Fruiting response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 11:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. Pages 47–72 In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2001. CGA 362622 antagonizes clethodim control of four annual grasses. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:59.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2:837–840.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 5:270–276.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H. and Leake, K. D. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in genetically-altered cotton utilizing postemergence over-the-top applications of bromoxynil. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:79.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Culpepper, A. S. 2001. Interactions of CGA 362622 and graminicides on annual grasses in cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:59.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:531–535.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:245–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, W. J., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10:7–12.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr., Wells, J. W., Hudetz, M., et al. 2000. CGA-362622 application timing, rates, and weed spectrum in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:240.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis postemergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:163–166.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596–601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 49:567–590.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Collins, J. R., and Hinton, J. D. 1998. Weed management with Buctril and Staple mixtures in BXN cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:264–265.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci. 42:210–215.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory (Ipomoea purpurea) resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxler, S. T., Wilcut, J. W., Porterfield, D., Askew, S. D., and Smith, W. D. 2001. Weed management in transgenic and nontransgenic Gossypium hirsutum with CGA 362622, pyrithiobac, bromoxynil, and glyphosate. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:58.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Influence of pyrithiobac sodium on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 46:111–115.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. Pages 343–400 In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Richburg, J. S. III. 1995. Is Staple a nutsedge herbicide? Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:600.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 1994. Nutsedge management in cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 3:1698.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. Pages 69–111 In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: NC Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar