Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:39:34.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Development and Yield Following Fluometuron Postemergence Applied

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David S. Guthrie  and
Alan C. York
David S. Guthrie
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fluometuron at 1.1 kg ai/ha was applied postemergence (over-the-top) to cotton in the V3 to V4 stage to determine effects on flower and boll production, yield, and fiber quality. Treated plants produced more bolls but boll weight was reduced. Lint yield was not affected. Flower and boll production during the first 2 weeks of flowering were reduced, but treated plants produced more flowers and bolls during mid- and late bloom. A delay in sympodia development delayed development of fruiting structures. Fluometuron treatment promoted sympodia development on monopodia at nodes three and four. Fiber micronaire was reduced in 1 of 2 yr. Fiber strength, length, and length uniformity were not affected.

Keywords

Fluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureacotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘McNair 235’Cotton flower productioncotton boll productioncotton fiber quality
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 501 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Andries, J. A., Douglas, A. G., and Cole, A. W. 1974. Herbicide, leaf type, and row spacing response in cotton. Weed Sci. 22:496–499.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1987. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. Publ. No. 161. N.C. Dep. Agric., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
3. Arte, H. F., and Hamilton, K. C. 1976. Over-the-top applications of herbicides in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:166–169.Google Scholar
4. Brown, S. M., and Whitwell, T. 1985. Weed control programs for minimum-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:843–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Byrd, J. D. Jr., and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35:270–276.Google Scholar
6. Dowler, C. C., and Hauser, E. W. 1975. Weed control systems in cotton on Tifton loamy sand soil. Weed Sci. 23:40–42.Google Scholar
7. Eisner, J. E., Smith, C. W., and Owen, D. F. 1979. Uniform stage descriptions in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 19:361–363.Google Scholar
8. Gaylor, M. J., Buchanan, G. A., Gilliland, F. R., and Davis, R. L. 1983. Interactions among a herbicide program, nitrogen fertilization, tarnished plant bugs, and planting dates for yield and maturity of cotton. Agron. J. 75:903–907.Google Scholar
9. Hamilton, K. C., and Arle, H. F. 1971. Herbicide combinations in irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 19:178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hogue, C. W. 1971. Directed versus topical application of herbicide combinations in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:93–98.Google Scholar
11. Kerby, T. A. 1988. Managing short season cotton. p. 46–49 in Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf., Las Cruces, NM. Aug. 9–11, 1988.Google Scholar
12. Kerby, T. A., Hake, K., and Keeley, M. 1986. Cotton fruiting modification with mepiquat chloride. Agron. J. 78:907–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Mauney, J. R. 1986. Vegetative growth and development of fruiting sites. p. 11–28 in Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. McD., ed. Cotton Physiology. The Cotton Found., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
14. Patterson, M. 1988. Report of the 1987 cotton weed loss committee. p. 392–395 in Brown, J. M., ed. Beltwide Cotton Prod.–Res. Conf., New Orleans, LA. Jan. 3–8, 1988. Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
15. Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32:95–100.Google Scholar
16. Turner, J. H. Jr., Worley, S., Ramey, H. H. Jr., Hoskinson, P. E., and Stewart, J. M. 1979. Relationship of week of flowering and parameters of boll yield in cotton. Agron. J. 71:248–251.Google Scholar
17. York, A. C. 1983. Response of cotton to mepiquat chloride with varying N rates and plant populations. Agron. J. 75:667–672.Google Scholar
18. York, A. C. 1988. Weed management in cotton. N.C. Agric. Ext. Serv. Bull. AG-275.Google Scholar