Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T11:37:58.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining Exposure to Auxin-Like Herbicides. I. Quantifying Injury to Cotton and Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Audie S. Sciumbato ,
James M. Chandler ,
Scott A. Senseman ,
Rodney W. Bovey  and
Ken L. Smith
Audie S. Sciumbato*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, College Station, TX 77843-2474
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Scott A. Senseman
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management, College Station, TX 77843-2126
Ken L. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas-Monticello, Monticello, AR 71656
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: audie@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop injury caused by drift of auxin-like herbicides has been a concern since their development. Research was conducted to describe a method of quantifying injury from auxin-like herbicides as a first step in determining crop damage. Reduced rates of 2,4-D, dicamba, and triclopyr were applied to cotton and soybean plants in the three- to six-leaf stage in field and greenhouse studies. Injury to leaves and stems were evaluated separately, and the values were combined so that one injury estimate was obtained for each individual plant rated. Injury symptoms were typical for auxin-type herbicides and ranged from slight bending of stems or petioles and wrinkled leaves to necrosis. Specific descriptions of leaf and stem injury levels were used to describe plant injury consistently. These descriptions were very detailed for the lower injury levels, but the characterizations became more general as the injury increased because of the prominence of factors such as necrosis. The injury evaluation method provided repeatable results for each herbicide and herbicide rate used. This injury evaluation method has many possible uses in auxin-like herbicide research and lays the foundation for forecasting the impact of early-season injury to cotton and soybean yield.

Keywords

2,4-Ddicambatriclopyrcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Delta Pine 50’ #3 GOSHIsoybean, Glycine max (L.) ‘Delta Pine 415’ Merr. # GLYMAEpinastymethodplant injuryrating scaleDAT, days after treatment.
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1125 - 1134
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

Arle, H. F. 1954. The sensitivity of Acala 44 cotton to 2,4-D. West. Weed Control Conf. Proc 4:20–25.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1981. Effects of 2,4,5-T, triclopyr and 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid on crop seedling. Weed Sci. 29:256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovey, R. W. and Young, A. L. 1980. The Science of 2,4,5-T and Associated Phenoxy Herbicides. New York: J. Wiley. Chapters 1, 7, 11, 13, and 14.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1993. Weed science—the step child. Weed Technol. 7:515–518.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1996. The history of 2,4-D and its impact on development of the discipline of weed science in the United States. in Burnside, O. C., ed. Biologic and Economic Assessment of Benefits from Use of Phenoxy Herbicides in the United States. Special NAPIAP Rep. 1-PA-96. Pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Bovey, R. W., Elmore, C. L., Knake, E. L., Lembi, C. A., Nalewaja, J. D., Newton, M., and Szmedra, P. 1996. Biologic and economic assessment of benefits from use of phenoxy herbicides in the United States. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 36:36.Google Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1975. The Phenoxy Herbicides. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Rep. 39. 22 p.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. W. and Kirkwood, R. C. 1982. Herbicides and Plant Growth Regulators. London: Granada. Pp. 119–121.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H., Kempen, H. M., Wilderson, J. A., and Fox, C. L. 1963. Response of Cotton to 2,4-D and Related Phenoxy Herbicides. USDA Technical Bull. 1289. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service. 1997. 1997 Weed Control Guidelines for Mississippi. Publication No. 1532. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E. 1967. The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agric. Hist 41:243–253.Google Scholar
Texas Agriculture Code. 1984. St. Paul, MN: West. Chapter 75.Google Scholar