Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:01:11.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protecting Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) from Fluometuron Injury with Seed Protectants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Billy R. Corbin Jr.  and
Robert E. Frans
Billy R. Corbin Jr.
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Robert E. Frans
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to evaluate the potential of growth regulators mepiquat chloride and chlormequat chloride as seed treatments to protect cotton from fluometuron injury. Fluometuron at two and three times the recommended use rate reduced cotton stand and height on Taloka and Convent silt loam soils both years. Cotton grown on a Sharkey silty clay soil was not injured by fluometuron. Mepiquat chloride and chlormequat chloride increased cotton stands on a Taloka silt loam soil when averaged over rates and years. In general, fluometuron injury to cotton was not reduced by treating seed with 1000 ppmw concentrations of chlormequat chloride or mepiquat chloride. Chlormequat chloride reduced chlorosis and necrosis of cotton treated with fluometuron, but neither growth regulator eliminated cotton injury or yield reduction caused by fluometuron at two or three times the recommended rates.

Keywords

Mepiquat chloride, 1,1-dimethylpiperidinium chloridechlormequat chloride, 2-chloroethyl trimethylammonium chloridefluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureacotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 825’Mepiquat chloridechlormequat chlorideherbicide antidotesseed treatment
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 408 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Alters, D. W. and Cothren, J. T. 1983. Influence of seed source and mepiquat chloride on cotton seed emergence. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. Pages 38–39.Google Scholar
2. Bhatt, J. G. 1975. Differential response of cotton to cycocel plant growth regulant. Turrialba 25:325–326.Google Scholar
3. Blair, A. M. 1979. The interaction of protectants with EPTC on field bean and triallate on wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 92:105–111.Google Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1971. Protecting corn from herbicide injury by seed treatment. Weed Sci. 19:565–568.Google Scholar
5. Carlson, D. R. 1987. The impact of Pix®, a plant growth regulator, on the physiology of cotton. Agron. Abstr. Page 89.Google Scholar
6. Chang, F. V., Stephensen, G. R., and Bandeen, J. D. 1973. Comparative effects of three EPTC antidotes. Weed Sci. 21:292–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Christiansen, M. N. and Ashworth, E. N. 1978. Prevention of chilling injury to seedling cotton with anti-transpirants. Crop Sci. 18:907–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Devlin, D. L., Moshier, L. J., Russ, O. G., and Stahlman, P. W. 1983. Antidotes reduce injury to grain sorghum from acetanilide herbicides. Weed Sci. 31:790–795.Google Scholar
9. Ezra, G., Krochmal, E., and Gressel, J. 1982. Competition between a thiocarbamate herbicide and herbicide protectants at the level of uptake into maize cells in culture. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 18:107–112.Google Scholar
10. Gordon, E. C., Frans, R. E., Talbert, R. E., and Waddle, B. A. 1979. Effects of preplant incorporated dinitroaniline herbicides and cover crop systems on cotton. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 836. 30 pp.Google Scholar
11. Hayes, R. M., Hoskinson, P. E., Overton, J. R., and Jeffery, L. S. 1981. Effect of consecutive annual applications of fluometuron on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 29:120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Huang, S. Y. and Gausman, H. W. 1982. Ultrastructural observations of an increase in cold tolerance in cotton plants (Gossypium hirsutum L.) by mepiquat chloride. J. Rio Grande Valley Hortic. Soc. 35:35–41.Google Scholar
13. Kerby, T. A. 1985. Cotton response to mepiquat chloride. Agron. J. 77:515–518.Google Scholar
14. Leif, J. W., Burnside, O. C., and Martin, A. R. 1987. Efficacy of CGA-92194 and flurazole in protecting grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) from herbicide injury. Weed Sci. 35:547–553.Google Scholar
15. Lockhart, J. A. 1962. Kinetic studies of certain anti-gibberellins. Plant Physiol. 37:759–764.Google Scholar
16. Ohali, Y., Eshel, Y., Marani, A., and Rubin, B. 1979. Increasing cotton resistance to fluometuron by treating seeds with CCC. Phytoparasitica 7:139.Google Scholar
17. Richardson, W. G. and Kirkham, F. W. 1982. The effect of two safeners as seed dressings on the preemergence activity of sixteen herbicides against perennial ryegrass. Ann. Appl. Biol. 100:76–77.Google Scholar
18. Thiessen, E. P., Stephenson, G. R., and Anderson, G. W. 1980. Factors influencing 1,8-naphthalic anhydride activity as an antidote to barban in oats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1005–1013.Google Scholar
19. Timmons, F. L. 1970. A history of weed control in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci. 18:294–307.Google Scholar
20. Tolbert, N. E. 1960. (2-chloroethyl)trimethylammonium chloride and related substances. I. Chemical structure and bioassay. J. Biol. Chem. 235:475–479.Google Scholar
21. Urwiler, M. J. 1981. Effect of mepiquat chloride on cotton seed germination and subsequent growth at minimal and optimal temperatures. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 64 pp.Google Scholar