Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-xg4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-04T14:48:26.840Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Effects of Repeated Applications of Trifluralin and Pendimethalin on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Wayne Keeling
Res. Dir., Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
Peter A. Dotray
Res. Dir., Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
John R. Abernathy
Res. Dir., Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401


The dinitroaniline herbicides, trifluralin and pendimethalin, are applied to approximately 90% of land seeded to cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains. Trifluralin and pendimethalin at 0.6 and 1.1 kg ai/ha were applied annually to plots from 1983 through 1994. Cotton stand counts, lint yield, and fiber quality varied from year-to-year due to environmental conditions. Differences in lint yield or fiber quality over the 11-yr period were not related to herbicide applications.

Copyright © 1996 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.)


Literature Cited

1. Abernathy, J. R., and Keeling, J. W. 1979. Efficacy and rotational crop response to levels and dates of dinitroaniline herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 27:312317.Google Scholar
2. Appleby, A. P., and Valverde, B. E. 1988. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in plants. Weed Technol. 3:198206.Google Scholar
3. Bryson, C. T., and Webster, L. 1988. Long term non-effects of trifluralin on cotton growth and yield. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Conf. 3:384.Google Scholar
4. Byrd, J. D. Jr., 1995. Report of the 1994 cotton weed loss committee. p. 597 in Richter, D. A. and Armour, J., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan 4–7, 1995. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
5. Byrd, J. D., and York, A. C. 1987. Annual grass control in cotton with fluazifop, sethoxydim, and selected dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:388394.Google Scholar
6. Dowler, C. C., and Hauser, E. W. 1975. Weed control systems in cotton on Tifton loamy sand soil. Weed Sci. 23:4042.Google Scholar
7. Hamilton, K.C., and Arle, H.F. 1976. Preplanting applications of dinitroanilines in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:5153.Google Scholar
8. Jordan, T. N., Baker, R. S., and Barrentine, W. L. 1977. Comparative toxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:7275.Google Scholar
9. Miller, J. H., Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thulen, R. J. 1975. Soil persistence of trifluralin. benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 23:211214.Google Scholar
10. Murray, D. S., Santelmann, P. W., and Greer, H.A.L. 1973. Differential phytotoxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Agron. J. 65:3436.Google Scholar
11. Murray, D. S., Street, J. E., Soteres, J. K., and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Growth inhibition of cotton and soybean roots and shoots by three dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:336342.Google Scholar
12. Oliver, L. R., and Frans, R. E. 1966. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in soil. Weeds Sci. 16:119203.Google Scholar
13. Ray, L. L., 1975. What is a cotton stand? Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf. p. 2527.Google Scholar