Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-bbpp6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-14T12:48:03.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of cotton growth stage on response to a sublethal concentration of 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2019

John T. Buol Open the ORCID record for John T. Buol [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniel B. Reynolds Open the ORCID record for Daniel B. Reynolds [Opens in a new window] ,
Darrin M. Dodds ,
J. Anthony Mills ,
Robert L. Nichols ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Johnie N. Jenkins  and
Janice L. DuBien
John T. Buol
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Darrin M. Dodds
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
J. Anthony Mills
Affiliation:
Technology Development Representative, Bayer, Collierville, TN, USA
Robert L. Nichols
Affiliation:
Senior Director, Cotton Inc., Cary, NC, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS, USA
Johnie N. Jenkins
Affiliation:
Director, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crop Science Research Laboratory, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Janice L. DuBien
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Statistics, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel B. Reynolds, Email: dreynolds@pss.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent commercialization of auxin herbicide–based weed control systems has led to increased off-target exposure of susceptible cotton cultivars to auxin herbicides. Off-target deposition of dilute concentrations of auxin herbicides can occur on cotton at any stage of growth. Field experiments were conducted at two locations in Mississippi from 2014 to 2016 to assess the response of cotton at various growth stages after exposure to a sublethal 2,4-D concentration of 8.3 g ae ha−1. Herbicide applications occurred weekly from 0 to 14 weeks after emergence (WAE). Cotton exposure to 2,4-D at 2 to 9 WAE resulted in up to 64% visible injury, whereas 2,4-D exposure 5 to 6 WAE resulted in machine-harvested yield reductions of 18% to 21%. Cotton maturity was delayed after exposure 2 to 10 WAE, and height was increased from exposure 6 to 9 WAE due to decreased fruit set after exposure. Total hand-harvested yield was reduced from 2,4-D exposure 3, 5 to 8, and 13 WAE. Growth stage at time of exposure influenced the distribution of yield by node and position. Yield on lower and inner fruiting sites generally decreased from exposure, and yield partitioned to vegetative or aborted positions and upper fruiting sites increased. Reductions in gin turnout, micronaire, fiber length, fiber-length uniformity, and fiber elongation were observed after exposure at certain growth stages, but the overall effects on fiber properties were small. These results indicate that cotton is most sensitive to low concentrations of 2,4-D during late vegetative and squaring growth stages.

Keywords

Daniel Stephenson, Louisana State University Agricultural Center2,4-Dcotton, Gossypiumhirsutum LAuxincohortexposure timingmaturityyield partitioning

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 321 - 328
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anonymous (2013) The Classification of Cotton. Cary, NC: Cotton Inc. 32 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018a) Cotton. http://extension.msstate.edu/agriculture/crops/cotton. Accessed: December 6, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018b) How a cotton plant grows. https://sanangelo.tamu.edu/extension/agronomy/agronomy-publications/how-a-cotton-plant-grows/. Accessed: September 21, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018c) Why irrigate cotton? Cary, NC: Cotton Inc. https://www.cottoninc.com/cotton-production/ag-resources/irrigation-management/why-irrigate-cotton/. Accessed: December 6, 2018Google Scholar
Bednarz, CW, Nichols, RL (2005) Phenological and morphological components of cotton crop maturity. Crop Sci 45:1497–1503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarz, CW, Roberts, PM (2001) Spatial yield distribution in cotton following early-season floral bud removal. Crop Sci 41:1800–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C (2004) Field case studies of dicamba movement to soybeans. In Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime, and Pest Management Conference. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison. 5 p.Google Scholar
Bourland, FM, Oosterhuis, DM, Tugwell, NP (1992) Concept for monitoring the growth and development of cotton plants using main-stem node counts. J Plant Ag 5:532–538Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2017) Update on dicamba-related injury investigations and estimates of injured soybean acreage. https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2017/10/final_report_dicamba_injured_soybean/. Accessed: March 27, 2018Google 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 (2015) Cotton stage of growth determines sensitivity to 2, 4-D. Weed Technol 30:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three- factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cundiff, GT, Reynolds, DB, Thomas, W, Mueller, T (2017) Evaluation of dicamba persistence among various agricultural hose types and cleanout procedures using soybean (Glycine max) as a bio-indicator. Weed Sci 65:305–316CrossRefGoogle 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 62:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2, 4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, CC, Brinker, RJ, inventors; Monsanto Company, assignee. Methods for weed control using plants transformed with dicamba monooxygenase. U.S. patent publication number US8629328 B2. 2014 Jan 14Google Scholar
File, SL, Reynolds, DB, Reddy, KN, Arnold, JC (2000) Field and laboratory tolerance of Roundup Ready® cotton to glyphosate. Pages 608–609 In Proceedings, Beltwide Cotton Conference, Volume 1. San Antonio, TX: Beltwide Cotton ConferenceGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, ND, edn. Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: April 23, 2018Google Scholar
Huff, JA, Dodds, DM, Irby, JT, Reynolds, DB (2010) Effect of glyphosate on fruit partitioning in early and late maturing Bollgard II/Roundup Ready Flex cotton varieties. J Cotton Sci 14:46–52Google Scholar
Jenkins, JN, McCarty, JC, Parrot, WL (1990) Effectiveness of fruiting sites in cotton yield. Crop Sci 30:365–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton peanut and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2, 4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, TA, Supak, J, Banks, JC, Snipes, C (1992) Timing defoliation using nodes above cracked boll. Pages 155–156 in Herber, DJ, Richter, DA, eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN 6–10 January 1992. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Kletter, E, Wallich, D (1982) Effects of fruiting form removal on cotton reproductive development. Field Crops Res 5:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2, 4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 22:609–614CrossRefGoogle 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 21:987–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, CD, Wehtje, G, Burmester, C, Price, AJ, Patterson, MG, Delaney, DP, Faircloth, W, Woods, MR (2007) Glyphosate-resistant cotton response to glyphosate applied in irrigated and nonirrigated conditions. Weed Technol 21:915–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, R (1941) New compounds: some chlorophenoxyacetic acids. J Am Chem Soc 63:1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, JS, Wright, JR, Braxton, LB, Robinson, AE, inventors; Dow Agrosciences, assignee. Increased tolerance of DHT-enabled plants to auxinic herbicides resulting from moiety differences in auxinic molecule structures. U.S. patent 13, 345, 236. 2012 July 12Google Scholar
Sadras, VO (1995) Compensatory growth in cotton after loss of reproductive organs. Field Crops Res 40:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadras, VO (1996) Cotton compensatory growth after loss of reproductive organs as affected by availability of resources and duration of recovery period. Oecologia 106(4):432–439CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 InstituteGoogle Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides, I: quantifying injury to cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:1125–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staten, G (1946) Contamination of cotton fields by 2, 4-D or hormone type weed sprays. Agron J 38:536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (2016) Web soil survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed: February 12, 2019Google Scholar
Walker, TW, Bond, JA, Ottis, BV, Gerard, PD, Harrell, DL (2008) Hybrid rice response to nitrogen fertilization for midsouthern United States rice production. Agron J 100:381–386CrossRefGoogle 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 U S A 107:20240–20245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, RC (2010) Towards understanding and use of mixed-model analysis of agricultural experiments. Can J Plant Sci 90:605–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasour, H, Sibony, M, Rubin, B, Litvak, M, Negba, K, Flash, I, Gat, E (2000) Influence of glyphosate (Roundup Ultra®) rate and time of application on weed control and performance of DP5415RR cotton in Israel: field and laboratory experiments. Pages 1480–1483 in Proceedings, Beltwide Cotton Conference, Volume 2. San Antonio, TX: Beltwide Cotton ConferenceGoogle Scholar