Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:05:02.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Simulated Drift from Selected Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Harold R. Hurst
Harold R. Hurst*
Affiliation:
Delta Branch, Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) response was evaluated when propanil (3′,4′-dichloropropionanilide), thiobencarb {S-[(4-chlorophenyl)methyl] diethylcarbamothioate}, butachlor [N-(butoxymethyl)-2-chloro-2′,6′-diethylacetanilide], oxadiazon [2-tert-butyl-4-(2,4-dichloro-5-isopropoxyphenyl)-δ2-1,3,4-oxadiazolin-5-one], bifenox [methyl-5-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)-2-nitrobenzoate], acifluorfen {5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid}, and metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5(4H)-one] were applied over-the-top at simulated drift rates at two growth stages during 1975 to 1979. No rate of butachlor or thiobencarb injured cotton. The order of phytotoxicity for the herbicides applied to cotyledonary cotton was propanil > metribuzin > bifenox > oxadiazon > acifluorfen > butachlor = thiobencarb. Herbicides injured cotton less at the five- or eight-node stage than at the cotyledonary stage. Injury was more severe in seasons of wet or cold weather during early plant development.

Keywords

Simulated driftacifluorfenbifenoxbutachlormetribuzinoxadiazonpropanilthiobencarb
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 1982 , pp. 311 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Arle, H. F. and Hamilton, R. C. 1976. Over-the-top applications of herbicides in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Baker, R. S., Arle, H. F., Miller, J. H., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1969. Effects of organic arsenical herbicides on cotton response and chemical residues. Weed Sci. 17:37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1979. Response of cotton to dicamba. Weed Sci. 27:604–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hurst, H. R. 1977. Cotton tolerance to over-the-top and directed applications of bentazon. Pages 181–182 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
5. Hurst, H. R. 1978. Cotton tolerance to rice herbicides. Pages 140–141 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
6. Hurst, H. R. 1979. Herbicides applied over-the-top to cotton at drift rates. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 19:27.Google Scholar
7. Jeffery, L. S., McCutchen, T., and Hoskinson, P. E. 1972. Effects of DSMA and MSMA on cotton. Pages 19–21 in Tennessee Farm and Home Sci. Prog. Rep. 84.Google Scholar
8. Jordan, T. N. and Bridge, R. R. 1976. Selectivity of glyphosate to cotton cultivars, johnsongrass, and bermudagrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:53–57.Google Scholar
9. Jordan, T. N. and Bridge, R. R. 1979. Tolerance of cotton to the herbicide glyphosate. Agron. J. 71:927–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Smith, R. J. Jr., Flinchum, W. T., and Seaman, P. E. 1977. Weed control in U.S. rice production. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbook 497. 82 pp.Google Scholar
11. Wiese, A. F. and Hudspeth, E. B. Jr. 1968. Effects of DSMA and MSMA on cotton yield and arsenic content of cottonseed. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. MP-877. 4 pp.Google Scholar