Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-t6jsk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T08:09:40.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Temperature and Adjuvants on Thidiazuron Activity in Cotton Leaves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. E. Snipes  and
G. D. Wills
C. E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Stn., Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
G. D. Wills
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Stn., Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A laboratory study was conducted to determine the effects of two adjuvants and temperatures at time of treatment on efficacy, absorption, and translocation of thidiazuron defoliant on cotton. Five days after treatment at 30/21 C day/night temperatures, leaf drop was 17% with no adjuvant, 37% with addition of crop oil concentrate, 40% with ammonium sulfate, and 75% with two adjuvants combined. At 21/13 C day/night temperatures, there was less than 10% leaf drop with all treatments. At 10 d after treatment, leaf drop was not different among treatments at the high or low temperatures. Shoot regrowth at high and low temperature was reduced 55 to 60% with addition of both adjuvants and 44 to 50% with each adjuvant or with no adjuvant when compared to plants defoliated by hand. Absorption of 14C-thidiazuron was not affected by variations in temperature during the time of treatment but was affected by adjuvants. With no adjuvants, absorption was 7 to 10%. With 1.25% by vol crop oil concentrate, absorption was 33 to 46%. Addition of ammonium sulfate resulted in 18 to 19% absorption, and the combination of ammonium sulfate and crop oil concentrate increased absorption to 65 to 68%. There was no movement of radiolabel away from treated leaves as determined by autoradiographs of treated plants.

Keywords

Thidiazuron, N-phenyl-N′-1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-ylurea)Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DES 119.’Translocationabsorptiondefoliationadjuvantammonium sulfateuptake efficiencythidiazuronGossypium hirsutum
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 13 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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. Cathey, G. W. 1986. Physiology of defoliation in cotton production. Pages 143–154 in Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. M., eds. Cotton Physiology. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
2. Cathey, G. W., Elmore, C. D., and McMichael, B. L. 1981. Some physiological responses of cotton leaves to foliar applications of potassium, 3,4-dichloroisothizo-t-carboxylate and sss-tributylphosphorotritioate. Physiol. Plants. 51:140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Crafts, A. S. and Reiber, H. G. 1945. Studies on the activation of herbicides. Hilgardia 16:487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Kent, L. M., Wills, G. D., and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Effect of ammonium sulfate, imazapyr and environment on the phytotoxicity of imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:202–205.Google Scholar
5. McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1976. Effects of adjuvants and environment on the toxicity of dalapon to johnsongrass. Weed Sci. 24:257–260.Google Scholar
6. Oosterhius, D. M., Hampton, R. E., and Wallschleger, S. D. 1991. Water deficit effects on the cotton leaf cuticle and the efficiency of defoliants. J. Prod. Agric. 4:260–265.Google Scholar
7. O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hamman, W. M. 1980. Influence of nonionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Salisbury, C. D., Chandler, J. M., and Merkle, M. G. 1991. Ammonium sulfate enhancement of glyphosate and SC–0224 control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol. 5:18–21.Google Scholar
9. Snipes, C. E. 1989. Pages 212–215 in Chemical and Cultural Practices for Optimum Cotton Productivity—1988 Annual Progress Report. Mississippi Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Info. Bull. 142.Google Scholar
10. Szabo, S. S. and Buchholtz, K. P. 1961. Penetration of living and non-living surfaces by 2,4-D as influenced by ionic additives. Weeds 9:177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Tscher, N., Quimba, G. P., and Bejuki, W. N. 1951. Activators which considerably increase the defoliant and phytotoxicity properties of endothall. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 5:35–44.Google Scholar
12. Turner, D. J. and Loader, M. P. C. 1975. Further studies with additives: Effects of phosphate esters and ammonium salts on the activity of leaf-applied herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 6:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Wills, G. D. 1984. Toxicity and translocation of sethoxydim in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) as affected by environment. Weed Sci. 32:20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1983. Effect of environment and adjuvants on the translocation and toxicity of fluazifop in Cynodon dactylon and Sorghum halepense . Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:283.Google Scholar
15. Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1981. Effect of environment on the translocation and toxicity of acifluorfen to showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 29:397–401.Google Scholar
16. Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1985. Effect of inorganic salts on the toxicity and translocation of glyphosate and MSMA in purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 33:755–761.Google Scholar
17. Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1987. Influence of inorganic salts and imazapyr on control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) with imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 1:328–331.Google Scholar