Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:19:05.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of non–bromoxynil-resistant cotton to reduced rates of bromoxynil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donnie K. Miller ,
Robert G. Downer ,
B. Roger Leonard ,
E. Merritt Holman  and
Steve T. Kelly
Robert G. Downer
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
B. Roger Leonard
Affiliation:
Macon Ridge Location of Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Winnsboro, LA 71295
E. Merritt Holman
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Steve T. Kelly
Affiliation:
Scott Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Winnsboro, LA 71295
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted for 2 yr to determine the effects of reduced rates of bromoxynil on growth and yield of non–bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Rates of 4.5, 9, 17, 35, 70, and 140 g ha−1, representing 0.008, 0.016, 0.031, 0.063, 0.125, and 0.25 fractions of the maximum labeled use rate per application (560 g ha−1), were applied to cotton at the two-, five-, or nine-node growth stage. Visual injury was reduced because application timing was delayed from two- to five-node stage in all experiments and from five- to nine-node stage in two of three experiments. Although negatively affected at all application timings, plant height reduction response decreased with increasing cotton maturity. Plant dry weight was most negatively affected after application at the two-node stage. Bromoxynil application, based on the node above white flower number, did not result in maturity delays but did promote earlier maturity when applied at 140 g ha−1 to two- and five-node stage cotton in one of the three experiments. Final plant population was reduced only at the two- and five-node timings, with response more pronounced at the initial timing. Seedcotton yield after bromoxynil application at the highest rate to two-leaf cotton was reduced 34% compared with other rates and the nontreated control. Bromoxynil applied to five- or nine-node cotton did not significantly reduce yield.

Keywords

Bromoxynilcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 474’, ‘DP 33B’Crop injurynontarget application
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 786 - 791
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

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:262–270.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P Press. 1827 p.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2000. Carrier volume effects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:173.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Grey, T. L., and Brecke, B. J. 2002. Pyrithiobac and bromoxynil combinations with MSMA for improved weed control in bromoxynil resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci 6:91–96.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H. and Leake, K. D. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in genetically-altered cotton utilizing postemergence over-the-top applications of bromoxynil. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 46:79.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H., Vidrine, P. R., and Collins, R. K. 1990. Phytotoxicity of quinclorac to cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 43:117.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage 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 non-transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:411–420.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., Linscombe, S. D., and Webster, E. P. 2000. Crop response to simulated drift of Roundup Ultra and Liberty herbicides. La. Agric 43/3:18–19.Google Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci 30:311–315.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, R. D. 1992. Review of the 1991 field trial results on bromoxynil-tolerant cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 3:1316.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. D., Reynolds, D. B., and Blackley, R. H. Jr. 1999. Corn and cotton response to drift rates of non-desired herbicide application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:30.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Allen, R. L., Shaw, D. R., Guy, C. B., Wells, R., and Crowder, S. H. 1992a. Influence of DPX-PE 350, fluometuron, and MSMA on fruiting response of cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 3:1315.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992b. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci 40:106–109.Google Scholar
Stalker, D. M. and McBride, K. E. 1987. Cloning and expression in Escherichia coli of a Klebsella ozaenae plasmid borne gene encoding a nitrilase specific for the herbicide bromoxynil. J. Bacteriol 169:955–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalker, D. M., McBride, K. E., and Malyj, L. D. 1988. Herbicide resistance in transgenic plants expressing a bacterial detoxification gene. Science 242:419–423.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Derksen, D. A., and Friesen, L. F. 1995. Canola (Brassica napus) response to simulated sprayer contamination with thifensulfuron and thifensulfuron:tribenuron (2:1). Weed Technol 9:468–476.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pages 213–230 in Duke, S. O. ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. New York: CRC and Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Snipes, C. E., Nichols, R. L., Hayes, R. M., Chandler, M., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 1998. A regional evaluation of new technologies for weed management in conventional-tillage cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:52–53.Google Scholar