Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:25:03.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Simulated Imazapic Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey ,
Eric P. Prostko ,
Craig W. Bednarz  and
Jerry W. Davis
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
Eric P. Prostko
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
Craig W. Bednarz
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
Jerry W. Davis
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Experimental Statistics, Georgia Experiment Station, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 at Tifton, GA, and Plains, GA, to evaluate the effects of simulated imazapic residues on cotton growth and yield. Preemergence applications of imazapic at 1, 2, 5, 9, 18, and 36 g ai/ha were made to four different cotton varieties (two at each location) and included a nontreated control. There were no differences in cotton variety response to imazapic. Each cotton variety responded to imazapic in a similar manner. Analysis of cotton yield as a percentage relative to the nontreated control indicated no difference in variety for location, so data for varieties were combined. At Tifton, cotton injury was exponentially related to imazapic rate with a maximum injury of 44% for 35 g/ha. Seed cotton yields at this location were reduced 0, 6, 6, 14, 16, 34, and 61% at 1, 2, 5, 9, 18, and 36 g/ha, respectively. For Plains, cotton exhibited extreme sensitivity with injury exceeding 70% for imazapic at 5 g/ha and greater than 95% for 18 g/ha. Seed cotton yields at this location were reduced 60% or more from imazapic rates of 5 g/ha and greater. These results indicated that soil type is a key factor in the response of cotton to imazapic.

Keywords

Imazapiccotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Carryover injuryherbicide persistenceresidual herbicidesimulated carryoverCEC, cation-exchange capacityDAT, days after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 1045 - 1049
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

Anonymous 2005. Cadre herbicide. BASF Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC 27704.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 1989 37:820–824.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.Google Scholar
Bednarz, C. W., Harris, G. H., and Shurley, W. D. 2000. Agronomic and economic analyses of cotton starter fertilizers. Agronomy. J. 92:766–771.Google Scholar
Bhalla, P., Hackett, N., Hart, R., and Lignowski, E. 1991. Imazaquin herbicide. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp 239–245.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1997. Purple nutsedge control in peanut as affected by imazameth and imazethapyr application timing. Peanut Sci. 24:113–116.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Baughman, T. A., Keeling, J. W., Grichar, W. J., and Lemon, R. G. 2001. Effect of imazapic application timing on Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin Weed Sci. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Prostko, E. P. et al. 2003. Residual weed control with imazapic, diclosulam, and flumioxazin in Southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 30:23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. H. 1996. Sorption and mobility of bentazon in Coastal Plain soils. Weed Sci. 44:166–170.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Nester, P. R. 1997. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 11:714–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogenboom, G. 2004. Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network: Web page http://www.georgiaweather.net. Accessed June 13, 2005.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Talbert, R. E., and Horton, D. R. 1995. Carryover potential of imazaquin to cotton, grain sorghum, wheat, rice, and corn. Weed Sci. 43:454–460.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Liebl, R. A. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37:712–718.Google Scholar
Magels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in soil—a review of the literature. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Matocha, M. A., Grichar, W. J., Senseman, S. A., Gerngross, C. A., Brecke, B. J., and Vencill, W. K. 2003. The persistence of imazapic in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) crop rotations. Weed Technol. 17:325–329.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. 2003. Cutting cost. in The Peanut Farmer: Web page http://www.peanutfarmer.com. Accessed June 13, 2005.Google Scholar
Pusino, A., Petretto, S., and Gessa, C. 1997. Adsorption and desorption of imazapyr by soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:1012–1016.Google Scholar
Regitano, J. B., Alleoni, L. R. F., Vidal-Torrado, P., Casagrande, J. C., and Tornisielo, V. L. 2000. Imazaquin sorption in highly weathered tropical soils. J. Environ. Qual. 9:894–900.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Culbreath, A. K., and Kvien, C. K. 1995. Response of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to the herbicide AC 263,222. Peanut Sci. 22:76–80.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. Toxicity of AC 263,222 to purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 42:398–402.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., Colvin, D. L., and Wiley, G. R. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10:145–152.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8, Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. 3884 pp.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J. 1994. Chlorimuron and imazaquin persistence in selected southern soils under controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 42:635–640.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in the soil—a review of the literature. in The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Chapter 16. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M., Wilcut, J. W., and Coble, H. D. 1997. Influence of AC 263,222 rate and application on weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:520–526.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Dickens, R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hajek, B. F. 1987. Sorption and mobility of sulfometuron and imazapyr in five Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 35:858–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Wiley, G. L., and Walls, R. F. Jr. 1996. Postemergence AC 263, 222 systems for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 4:615–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of soil-applied AC 263,222 on crops rotated with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:276–279.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign IL: WSSA.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Potential for pursuit and cadre applied to peanuts to carry over to cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:602.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., Batts, R. B., and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Cotton response to imazapic and imazethapyr applied to a preceding peanut crop. Journal of Cotton Sci. 4:210–216.Google Scholar