Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:51:46.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Stage Affects Cotton Response to Trifloxysulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Gregory R. Armel  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hwilson@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to evaluate cotton response to trifloxysulfuron applied postemergence over the top (POT) or postemergence-directed (PDIR) at various growth stages. Treatments included trifloxysulfuron at 3.8 or 7.5 g ai/ha plus nonionic surfactant (NIS) applied POT to one-, three-, and five-leaf cotton or applied PDIR to 30- and 45-cm tall cotton. Crop injury 7 d after treatment (DAT) varied by year and ranged from 17 to 50%, 19 to 46%, and 5 to 23% with trifloxysulfuron applied POT to one-, three-, and five-leaf cotton, respectively. Injury 21DAT averaged 22, 16, and 6% with one-, three-, and five-leaf applications respectively. Trifloxysulfuron applied PDIR injured cotton 2 to 9% 7 DAT and 0 to 12% 21 DAT. At 30 DAT, cotton height was reduced with one-leaf trifloxysulfuron application, whereas differences were not present across other treatments. Heights at 90 days after planting (DAP) did not differ between treatments. Neither trifloxysulfuron rate or application timing negatively affected cotton yield or fiber quality.

Keywords

Trifloxysulfuroncotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Herbicide application timingcrop tolerance
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 37 - 40
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.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2003. Monument 75 WG herbicide. Greensboro, NC 27409 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005. Envoke herbicide. Greensboro, NC 27409 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), peanut (Arachis hypogea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.Google Scholar
Branson, J. W., Smith, K. L., Barrentine, J. L., and Namenek, R. C. 2002. Cotton phytotoxicity with trifloxysulfuron as influenced by soil moisture, temperature, and tankmixes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:29–30.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A., Carey, J. B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1996. Effect of growth stage and environment on foliar absorption, translocation, metabolism, and activity of nicosulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Sci. 44:447–454.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–276.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Brownie, C. 2003. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil test recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publication 834. Blacksburg, VA Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 154.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
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311–315.Google Scholar
Joham, H. E. 1979. The effect of nutrient elements on fruiting efficiency. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Phoenix, AZ, 7–11 January 1979. 306–311.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henninger, 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
Miller, D. K., Vidrine, P. R., Kelly, S. T., and Lee, D. R. 2003. Effect of over-the-top and postemergence directed applications of Envoke on cotton growth and yield. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:285.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. P. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13:6–11.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., Rayburn, T., and Wehtje, G. 1990. Effects of chlorimuron applied postemergence to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:314–317.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002. Weed-free response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Combinations of CGA 362622 and bromoxynil for broadleaf weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:496–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004. Influence of adjuvants on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to postemergence applications of CGA 362622. Weed Technol. 18:9–15.Google Scholar
Rosales-Robles, E., Chandler, J. M., Senseman, S. A., and Prostko, E. P. 1999. Influence of growth stage and herbicide rate on postemergence johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol. 13:525–529.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.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Ratnayake, S., and Smith, C. A. 1990. Effects of herbicide application timing on johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) control. Weed Technol. 4:900–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar