Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:27:59.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Imazaquin and Imazethapyr Soil Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David H. Johnson  and
Ronald E. Talbert
David H. Johnson
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of imazaquin and imazethapyr on cotton planted the year following application to soybean were studied on one silt loam and two clay soils in Arkansas from 1989 to 1991. Imazaquin was applied to soybean at 0.07 kg ai ha−1 PPI and POST, 0.14 kg ha−1 PPI, PRE, and POST, and sequentially PPI or PRE followed by POST at 0.14 kg ha−1 per application. Imazethapyr was applied at 0.035 kg ha−1 PPI and POST, 0.07 kg ha−1 PPI, PRE, and POST, and sequentially PPI or PRE followed by POST at 0.07 kg ha−1 per application. Soil residues of 0.07 kg ha−1 imazaquin and imazethapyr did not injure cotton at any location. Residues of 0.14 kg ha−1 imazaquin applied sequentially reduced cotton shoot dry weight for 6 wk after emergence on clay but not on silt loam soil. The PPI followed by POST sequential imazaquin treatment (0.28 kg ha−1 total imazaquin) delayed initiation of fruiting and reduced yield and lint quality.

Keywords

Imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide carryoverherbicide persistence
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 156 - 161
Copyright
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Baldwin, F. L., Boyd, J. W., and Guy, C. B. 1992. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. Misc. Pub. 44. Coop. Ext. Ser., Univ. of Arkansas. p. 41.Google Scholar
2. Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37: 820–824.Google Scholar
3. Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35: 865–870.Google Scholar
4. Bourland, F. M. and Watson, C. E. Jr. 1990. COTMAP, a technique for evaluating structure and yield of cotton plants. Crop Sci. 30: 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37: 815–819.Google Scholar
6. Curran, W. S., Knake, E. L., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Corn (Zea mays) injury following use of clomazone, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5: 539–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40: 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans. Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci. 11: 929–931.Google Scholar
9. Gardner, F. P., Pearce, R. B., and Mitchell, R. L. 1985. Physiology of crop plants. Iowa Univ. Press. Ames. IA. p. 202.Google Scholar
10. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence on imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. Wiley. New York. pp. 256–259. 298–299.Google Scholar
12. Johnson, D. H., and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Imazethapyr and imazaquin control puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) but carry over to spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Weed Technol. 7: 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Soybean (Glycine max) and rotational crop response to PPI chlorimuron, clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 8: 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 353–359.Google Scholar
15. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
16. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1993. Effect of straw, ash, and tillage on dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 41: 133–137.Google Scholar
17. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1991. Response of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) to herbicide residues in soil. Weed Technol. 5: 622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rale, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36: 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F. and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Shaner, D. L. 1991. Physiological effects of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 129–137 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The imidazolinone herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton. FL.Google Scholar
21. Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone-acetohydroxyacid synthase interactions. Pages 71–90 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The imidazolinone herbicides. CRC Press. Boca Raton. FL.Google Scholar
22. Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4: 39–43.Google Scholar
23. York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1993. Insecticides do not affect cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 41: 269–280.Google Scholar