Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:07:33.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Growth and Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Dale Monks ,
Michael G. Patterson ,
John W. Wilcut  and
Dennis P. Delaney
C. Dale Monks*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Dennis P. Delaney
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils and Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at one location in Georgia (1994) and at two locations in Alabama (1994 and 1995) to evaluate the effects of MSMA or DSMA plus pyrithiobac applied postemergence (POST) in cotton. Pyrithiobac at 0.07 kg ai/ha was applied POST alone or in combination with MSMA at 1.1 kg ai/ha or DSMA at 1.7 kg ai/ha at the pinhead square stage of cotton growth. Cotton was tolerant to the POST applications of pyrithiobac. Adding MSMA or DSMA to pyrithiobac injured cotton similar to MSMA or DSMA applied alone. Plant mapping data indicated that all treatments had no effect on height : node ratio, reproductive or vegetative node production, or square retention at the first or second fruiting position. Cotton maturity response to MSMA and DSMA ranged from no effect to delayed maturity. Adding DSMA to pyrithiobac increased Florida beggarweed and common cocklebur control over pyrithiobac applied alone in 1995 but did not increase control in 1994. Adding DSMA to pyrithiobac increased sicklepod control over pyrithiobac applied alone in the three site years it was rated in the Alabama tests. Where sicklepod is present, the addition of an arsenical herbicide to pyrithiobac will generally increase control but has the potential to delay maturity and decrease cotton yield equal to the arsenical herbicide applied alone.

Keywords

DSMA, disodium methanearsonateMSMA, monosodium methanearsonatepyrithiobac, 2-chloro-6-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)thio]benzoic acidcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (SW.) DC. # DEDTOsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin & Barneby # CASOBcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Growth responseplant mappingDP, Delta and Pine LandHNR, height : node ratioPOST, postemergenceWAP, weeks after plantingWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 6 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Allen, R. L. and Snipes, C. E. 1995. Interactions of foliar insecticides applied with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 9:512–517.Google Scholar
Arle, H. F. and Hamilton, K. C. 1976. Over-the-top applications of herbicides in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:166–169.Google Scholar
Baker, R. S., Arle, H. F., Miller, J. H., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1968. Effects of organic arsenical herbicides on cotton response and chemical residues. Weed Sci. 16:37–40.Google Scholar
Bourland, F. M. and Watson, C. E. 1990. COTMAP, a technique for evaluating structure and yield of cotton plants. Crop Sci. 30:224–226.Google Scholar
Brown, C., Bradley, J. F., and Hayes, R. M. 1995. Hooded and post- directed sprayers in no-till cotton. In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation Tillage Systems for Cotton: A review of Research and Demonstration Results from Across the Cotton Belt. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Bull. 169. pp. 46–49.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. 1996. Cotton weed control. In Delaplane, K., ed. Georgia Pest Control Handbook. Georgia Coop. Ext. Serv. Spec. Bull. 882. p. 30.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr., and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 33:270–276.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Savage, K. E. 1980. Phytotoxic interaction between phenylurea herbicides in a cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)–soybean (Glycine max) sequence. Weed Sci. 28:521–526.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10:7–12.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. 1986. Fruiting profile of cotton following over top applications of fluometuron and MSMA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. p. 253.Google Scholar
Hammes, G. G., Mitchell, W. H., and Turner, R. G. 1994. Cotton weed control strategies with Staple in the southeastern U.S. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:47–48.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. DPX-PE350 does not interact with early-season insecticides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 7:92–96.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993c. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993d. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., McClelland, M. R., Frans, R. E., and Kendig, J. A. 1993e. Effect of MSMA on entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) control with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:36–41.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1971. Cotton response to temperature and organic arsenicals. Weed Sci. 19:297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1993. Effects of DPX PE350 on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth, yield, and fiber quality. Weed Technol. 7:930–933.Google Scholar
Nimbal, C. I., Shaw, D. R., Duke, S. O., and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1995. Response of MSMA-resistant and -susceptible common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) biotypes to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) herbicides and cross-resistance to arsenicals and membrane disruptors. Weed Technol. 9:440–445.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. G., Burmester, C. H., and Monks, C. D. 1995. Weed control research with conservation-tillage cotton in Alabama. In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation Tillage Systems for Cotton: A Review of Research and Demonstration Results from Across the Cotton Belt. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Bull. 169. p 22.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. G., Everest, J. E., Burmester, C. H., and Monks, C. D. 1996. Cotton weed control. In Gazaway, W., ed. Cotton IPM. Auburn, AL: Ala. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. 415. p. 19.Google Scholar
Shankle, M. W., Hayes, R. M., Reich, V. H., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. MSMA and pyrithiobac effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development, quality, and yield. Weed Sci. 44:137–142.Google Scholar
Sims, B. D., Guethle, D. R., House, J. L., and Mutanga, C. K. 1991. Effects of pyrithiobac on weed control, cotton yield, and lint quality. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:75.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1994. The influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci. 42:210–215.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1993. Weed management for reduced-tillage southeastern cotton. In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation Tillage Systems for Cotton: A Review of Research and Demonstration Results from Across the Cotton Belt. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Bull. 160. p. 29–35.Google Scholar