Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:39:31.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bromoxynil, Prometryn, Pyrithiobac, and MSMA Weed Management Systems for Bromoxynil-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jerry L. Corbett ,
Shawn D. Askew ,
Dunk Porterfield  and
John W. Wilcut
Jerry L. Corbett
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at two locations in North Carolina in 1999 and 2000 to evaluate weed and bromoxynil-resistant cotton response to bromoxynil, pyrithiobac, and MSMA applied early postemergence (EPOST), alone or mixtures in all combinations (two way and three way), and to prometryn plus MSMA applied late postemergence directed (LAYBY). Trifluralin preplant incorporated followed by fluometuron preemergence controlled common lambsquarters, eclipta, and smooth pigweed at least 90%. These herbicides also provided greater than 90% common ragweed control at two locations but only 65% control at a third location. Pyrithiobac and pyrithiobac plus MSMA EPOST increased sicklepod control more than did bromoxynil or bromoxynil plus MSMA EPOST. Bromoxynil and pyrithiobac were more effective for sicklepod control when applied in mixture with MSMA. Bromoxynil plus pyrithiobac EPOST or with MSMA controlled (≥ 90%) common lambsquarters, common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, prickly sida, and smooth pigweed early season. But the LAYBY treatment of prometryn plus MSMA frequently improved late-season control of entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, prickly sida, and sicklepod. A tank mixture of MSMA plus bromoxynil or pyrithiobac and the three-component tank mixture (bromoyxnil, MSMA, plus pyrithiobac) provided a broader weed control spectrum than did either bromoxynil or pyrithiobac alone. Cotton lint yields were increased with all postemergence systems, and the LAYBY treatment of prometryn plus MSMA increased cotton yields in 13 out of 16 comparisons. High cotton yields were indicative of high levels of weed control.

Keywords

Bromoxynil, fluometuron, MSMA, prometryn, pyrithiobac, trifluralin, common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEAL; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBEL; eclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. # ECLAL; entireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHG; large crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSA; prickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSP; sicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOB; smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACH; cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville BXN 47’Crop injuryherbicide-resistant cottonBrachiaria platyphylla, BRAPPEPOST, early postemergence; fb, followed by; LAYBY, late postemergence directed; PDS, postemergence directed; PRE, preemergence; PPI, preplant incorporated
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 712 - 718
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

Anonymous. 1998. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth. pp. 29–30.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
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 cotton weed loss committee. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 837–840.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 27: 531–535.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11: 335–345.Google 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
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devils-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10: 7–12.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., 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
Harrison, M. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Environment affects cotton and velvetleaf response to pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. 44: 241–247.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7: 216–219.Google Scholar
Light, G. G., Dotray, P. A., and Mahan, J. R. 1999. Thermal dependence of pyrithiobac efficacy in Amaranthus palmeri . Weed Sci. 47: 644–650.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75: 153–155.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13: 6–11.Google Scholar
Parks, R. J., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Calvin, D. D. 1995. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence herbicides and cultivation. Weed Technol. 4: 728–735.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47: 596–601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 567–570.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Collins, J. R., and Hinton, J. D. 1998a. Weed management with Buctril and Staple mixtures in BXN cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 264–265.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Hinton, J. D. 1998b. Buctril and MSMA combinations for sicklepod management in BXN cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 27–28.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2000. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 166–167.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. New York: CRC and Lewis Publishers. pp. 213–230.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. 343–400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publication No. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 69–111.Google Scholar