Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T10:28:14.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Total Postemergence Herbicide Programs in Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum) with Sethoxydim and DPX-PE350

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David L. Jordan ,
Robert E. Frans  and
Marilyn R. McClelland
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville, AR 72701
Robert E. Frans
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville, AR 72701
Marilyn R. McClelland
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control and cotton yield with a herbicide program of sethoxydim and DPX-PE350 applied postemergence over-the-top was compared with that of a standard herbicide program of trifluralin applied PPI plus fluometuron applied PRE plus methazole and MSMA applied postemergence-directed. Control of pitted and entireleaf morningglory, smooth pigweed, and prickly sida was similar with the postemergence over-the-top program and the standard herbicide program when DPX-PE350 was applied to cotton in the V2 or V4 growth stages. Less weed control and lower yield were observed when DPX-PE350 was applied to V6-stage cotton. Good control of annual grasses was obtained with all herbicide programs.

Keywords

DPX-PE350, 2-chloro-6-(4,5-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-ylthio)benzoatefluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureamethazole, 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1,2,4-oxadiazolidine-3,5-dioneMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidsethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-onetrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamineentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 825’, ‘Stoneville 453’, ‘Deltapine 50’, and ‘Arkott 518’Application timingfluometuronmethazoleMSMAtrifluralinIpomoea hederacea var. integriuscula GrayIpomoea lacunosa L.Sida spinosa L.Amaranthus hybridus L.IPOHGIPOLAAMACHSIDSP
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 196 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. p. 47–72 in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. The Cotton Foundation. Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
2. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Annual grass control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with fluazifop, sethoxydim, and selected dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:388–394.Google Scholar
3. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35:270–276.Google Scholar
4. Carter, C. H. and Keeley, P. E. 1987. Selective control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with foliar herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:418–421.Google Scholar
5. Crawford, S. H., Vidrine, P. R., and Collins, R. K. 1989. Preliminary evaluation of DPX-T9595 and KIH-8921 for weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:106.Google Scholar
6. Edmund, R. M. 1991. Weed control in cotton with DPX-PE350. Abstr. Ark. Agric. Pestic. Assoc. 30:24.Google Scholar
7. Eisner, J. E., Smith, C. W., and Owen, D. F. 1979. Uniform stage descriptions in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 19:361–363.Google Scholar
8. Frans, R. E. and Chandler, J. M. 1989. Strategies and tactics for weed management. p. 327–359 in Frisbie, R. E., El-Zik, K. M., and Wilson, L. T., eds. Integrated Pest Management Systems and Cotton Production. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.Google Scholar
9. Frans, R. E., Jordan, D. L., and McClelland, M. R. 1990. Selectivity of KIH-8921 for weed management in cotton. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 30:19.Google Scholar
10. Frans, R. E., Jordan, D. L., and McClelland, M. R. 1991. Influence of application method, rate, and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 31:37.Google Scholar
11. Frans, R. E., Terhune, M. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1988. Influence of sethoxydim, MSMA, and glyphosate on cotton fruiting. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep. Series 308.Google Scholar
12. Frans, R. E., Morris, G., and Appleberry, M. 1971. Effect of topical herbicide applications on growth and yield of cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:92.Google Scholar
13. Gaylor, M. J., Buchanan, G. A., Gilliland, F. R., and Davis, R. L. 1983. Interactions among a herbicide program, nitrogen fertilization, tarnished plant bugs and planting dates for yield and maturity of cotton. Agron. J. 75:903–907.Google Scholar
14. Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1986. Postemergence grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogea). Weed Sci. 34:587–590.Google Scholar
15. Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.Google Scholar
16. Hogue, C. W. 1971. Directed versus topical application of herbicide combinations in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:93–98.Google Scholar
17. Holshouser, D. L. and Chandler, J. M. 1991. Susceptibility of eight morningglory species to DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44: 78.Google Scholar
18. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1990. Evaluation of KIH-8921 for weed management systems in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:114.Google Scholar
19. Mitchell, W. H. 1991. Cotton weed control with DPX-PE350 “A southern perspective”. p. 958 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod.—Res. Conf., San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–13, 1991. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
20. Nastasi, P., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1986. Economics and new alternatives in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) weed management programs. Weed Sci. 34:634–638.Google Scholar
21. Oliver, L. R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1986. Weed competition and economic thresholds. p. 71–97 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
22. Parker, W. B., Thompson, L. Jr., and Godley, F. M. 1985. Integrating sethoxydim into soybean (Glycine max) weed management systems. Weed Sci. 33:100–108.Google Scholar
23. Ridgeway, R. L., Bell, A. A., Veech, J. A., and Chandler, J. M. 1984. Cotton protection practices in the USA and world. p. 265–365 in Kohel, R. J. and Lewis, C. F., eds. Cotton. Agronomy Monograph No. 24. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
24. Sims, B. D., Guethle, D. R., and House, J. L. 1991. Effects of over-the-top Cotoran and Probe on cotton yield and lint quality. p. 965 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod.—Res. Conf., San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–13, 1991. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
25. Snipes, C. E., Allen, R. L., Shaw, D. R., Guy, C. B., Wells, R. G., and Crowder, S. H. 1992. Influence of DPX-PE350, fluometuron, and MSMA on fruiting of cotton. p. 1315 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan. 7–10, 1992. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
26. Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1992. Differential tolerance of several morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.) to DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:48.Google Scholar
27. York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 1990. Effect of (NH4)2SO4 and BCH 81508 S on efficacy on sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 4:76–80.Google Scholar
28. Wells, R. G., Guy, C. B., and Beaty, J. D. 1991. Cotton response to DPX-PE350, fluometuron, and MSMA. Abstr. Ark. Agric. Pestic. Assoc. 30:23.Google Scholar