Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T03:49:58.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and Weed Response to Flumioxazin Applied Preplant and Postemergence Directed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shawn D. Askew ,
John W. Wilcut  and
John R. Cranmer
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John R. Cranmer
Affiliation:
Valent USA Corporation, Suite 250-3, 1135 Kildaire Farm Road, Cary, NC 27511
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Separate field experiments were conducted to evaluate weed control and cotton response to flumioxazin in North Carolina. Flumioxazin postemergence directed (PD) at 70 g ai/ha applied alone or mixed with glyphosate or MSMA completely controlled common lambsquarters, common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, ivyleaf morningglory, Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, sicklepod, smooth pigweed, and tall morningglory 4 wk after treatment. Glyphosate at 1,120 g ai/ha controlled sicklepod and entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglory less than flumioxazin. Weed-free experiments were conducted to evaluate cotton injury, fresh biomass reduction, and yield response to flumioxazin at 70 g ai/ha preplant (PP) and two rates PD. Nine PP applications were made at various timings between 0 and 10 wk prior to planting. Cotton was stunted 12% initially, and midseason cotton biomass was reduced when flumioxazin was applied at planting in 1 yr. Flumioxazin did not injure 15- or 30-cm–tall cotton when applied PD at 36 or 70 g/ha. Cotton yield differed between years, but was not affected by various flumioxazin treatments compared with commercial standards and nontreated controls.

Keywords

FlumioxazinglyphosateMSMAcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats. # AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia Irwin and Banaby # CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Deltapine 51’, ‘Suregrow 125’Burn-down applicationfresh biomassinjuryLAYBYstale seedbedLAYBY, the last postemergence-directed herbicide applicationPD, postemergence directedPOST, postemergencePP, preplantPRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 184 - 190
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

Altom, J. V., Cranmer, J. R., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide—the new standard for layby applications in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:159.Google Scholar
Arle, H. F., Miller, J. H., and Sheets, T. J. 1965. Disappearance of herbicides from irrigated soils. Weeds 13: 56–60.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 308–313.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Tropic croton (Croton glandulosus) interference in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 49: 184–189.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999a. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 13: 594–598.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., Bailey, W. A., and Scott, G. H. 1999b. Weed management in conventional and no-tillage cotton using BXN, Roundup Ready, and Staple OT systems. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 23:743.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 2000. Variety selection. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 24–40.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. 631 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18: 149–154.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 cotton weed loss committee. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Memphis, TN: Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, National Cotton Council of America. pp. 837–840.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Savage, K. E. 1980. Phytotoxic interaction between phenylurea herbicides in a cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)-soybean (Glycine max) sequence. Weed Sci. 28: 521–526.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:88.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:158.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11: 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 411–420.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 33–42, 511.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci. 23: 30–36.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., Hoskinson, P. E., Overton, J. R., and Jeffery, L. S. 1981. Affect of consecutive annual applications of fluometuron on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 29: 121–123.Google Scholar
Holstun, J. T. Jr. and McWhorter, C. G. 1962. Replanting cotton treated preemergence with diuron. Weeds 10: 237–239.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., Anderson, R. L. et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum-Aegilops cylindrica interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47: 529–537.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., MacDonald, G. E., and Altom, J. V. 2000. Evaluation of flumioxazin for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) layby weed control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 220–221.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynilresistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47: 596–601.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Pline, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Physiological behavior of post-directed flumioxazin in Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:71.Google Scholar
Rawlings, J. O., Pantula, S. G., and Dickey, D. A. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis—A Research Tool. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 486–489.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1,028 p.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. D., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grain and fiber crops. Weed Technol. 7: 625–632.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical weed control. In Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 627–661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., and Cranmer, J. 1998. Weed management in North Carolina peanut with flumioxazin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:56.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Price, A. J., Scott, G. H., and Cranmer, J. 2000. Valor™—a new weed management option for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 159–160.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 741–742.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 69–111.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R., Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. S-53482—a new N-phenyl phthalimide herbicide. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf., Weeds. 1: 69–75.Google Scholar