Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:04:39.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non–2,4-D–resistant cotton response to glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline tank contamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2019

Misha R. Manuchehri Open the ORCID record for Misha R. Manuchehri [Opens in a new window] ,
Peter A. Dotray ,
J. Wayne Keeling ,
Gaylon D. Morgan  and
Seth A. Byrd
Misha R. Manuchehri*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Science Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Peter A. Dotray
Affiliation:
Rockwell Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
J. Wayne Keeling
Affiliation:
Professor, Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Lubbock, TX, USA
Gaylon D. Morgan
Affiliation:
Professor and State Extension Cotton Specialist, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Seth A. Byrd
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Cotton Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Misha R. Manuchehri, Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Science Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078. Email: misha.manuchehri@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted near Lubbock, TX, in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to evaluate non–2,4-D–resistant cotton response to low rates of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline. Cotton was treated with five rates of glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline (0.0183, 0.183, 1.83, 18.3, and 183 g ae ha−1) at two application timings (nine leaf and first bloom). These rates correspond to contamination rates of 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8%, respectively. Visual cotton injury, boll retention, lint yield, and fiber properties were recorded. When averaged over contamination rates, visual injury after applications made to nine-leaf cotton was greater than for first-bloom cotton in three of 3 yr and yield loss was greater when applications were made to nine-leaf cotton when compared with first-bloom cotton in two of 3 yr. Averaged over application timing, lint yield in 2013, 2014, and 2015 after glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline contamination rates of 0.0008% and 0.008% were not different than that of the nontreated control, whereas contamination rates of 0.08%, 0.8%, and 8% decreased yield by 3% to 20%, 45% to 58%, and 80% to 96%, respectively. Contamination rates of 0.0008%, 0.008%, 0.08%, and 0.8% rarely affected fiber quality; however, a contamination rate of 8% frequently decreased micronaire, fiber length, fiber length uniformity, and fiber strength. This decrease in fiber quality also resulted in a reduction in cotton loan value and potential financial return. Although decreases in fiber quality parameters were not observed with the 0.8% contamination rate, significant reductions in financial return occurred due to yield loss caused by injury from glyphosate plus 2,4-D choline.

Keywords

Jason Bond, Mississippi State University2,4-Dglyphosatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Off-target movementsimulated driftsynthetic auxinfiber qualityyield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 82 - 88
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Blackman, GE (1948) Recent development in the control of weeds. Royal Hort Sci 73:134–144 Google Scholar
Bourland, FM, Hogan, R, Jones, DC, Barnes, E (2010) Development and utility of Q-score for characterizing cotton fiber quality. J Cotton Sci 14: 53–63 Google Scholar
Bronson, K (2004) Nutrient Management for Texas High Plains Cotton Production. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. https://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/lubbock/files/2011/10/nutrmgmtforcot09.pdf. Accessed: September 10, 2019Google Scholar
Byrd, SA, Collins, GD, Culpepper, AS, Dodds, DM, Edmisten, KL, Wright, DL, Morgan, GD, Baumann, PA, Dotray, PA, Manuchehri, MR, Jones, A, Grey, TL, Webster, TM, Davis, JW, Whitaker, JR, Roberts, PM, Snider, JL, Porter, WM (2016) Cotton stage of growth determines sensitivity to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 30:601–610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotton Inc. (2016) Fiber properties. http://www.cottoninc.com/fiber/quality/Crop-Quality-Reports/Crop-Quality-Legend/Fiber-Properties/. Accessed: November 4, 2018Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Registration of Enlist Duo. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo. Accessed: November 4, 2018Google Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryer, JD (1980) Foreword. Pages 1–3 in Kirby, C, ed. The Hormone Weedkillers. A Short History of Their Discovery and Development. Croyden, UK: British Crop Protection Council. 55 pGoogle Scholar
Hamner, CI, Tukey, HB (1944) Herbicidal action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and trichlorophenoxyacetic acid on bindweed. Science 100:154–155 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edminsten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, M, Keeling, W, Keys, K, Morgan, G (2014) 2014 High Plains and Northern Rolling Plains Cotton Harvest-Aid Guide. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://cotton.tamu.edu./General%20Production/2014_Harvest_Aid_Guide.pdf. Accessed: November 4, 2018Google Scholar
Kerns, DL, Sanson, CG, Siders, KT, and Baugh, BA (2009) Managing Cotton Insects in the High Plains, Rolling Plains, and Trans Pecos Areas of Texas. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/Production/e6.pdf. Accessed: November 4, 2018Google Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 22:609–614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claassen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, JW, Hamner, CI (1944) Polyethylenecols as carriers for growth regulating substances. Bot Gaz 105:474–483 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCC] National Cotton Council of America (2019) CCC loan premium & discount schedule: upland cotton. https://www.cotton.org/econ/govprograms/cccloan/ccc-upland-discounts.cfm. Accessed: September 10, 2019Google Scholar
Richburg, JS, Wright, JR, Braxton, LB, Robinson, AE, inventors; Dow AgroSciences, assignee (July 12, 2012). Increased tolerance of DHT-enabled plants to auxinic herbicides resulting from MOIETY differences in auxinic molecule structures. US patent 13,345,236Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 16–19 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (1995) The Classification of Cotton. USDA-AMS Agricultural Handbook 566. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT10825960/PDF. Accessed: September 8, 2019Google Scholar
Wright, TR, Shan, G, Walsh, TA, Lira, JM, Cui, C, Song, P, Zhuang, M, Arnold, NL, Lin, G, Yau, K, Russell, SM, Cicchillo, RM, Peterson, MA, Simpson, DM, Zhou, N, Ponsamuel, J, Zhang, Z (2010) Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:20240–20245 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed