Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:24:35.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed-Free Yield Response of Seven Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Cultivars to CGA-362622 Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dunk Porterfield ,
John W. Wilcut ,
Scott B. Clewis  and
Keith L. Edmisten
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Keith L. Edmisten
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate the response of seven cotton cultivars to CGA-362622 applied postemergence at 7.5 and 15 g ai/ha to three- to five-leaf cotton. The cultivars evaluated included Deltapine 51, Deltapine NuCotn 33B, Paymaster 1220 RR, Paymaster 1220 BG/RR, Stoneville bromoxynil-resistant 47, Stoneville 474, and Sure-Grow 125. At 1 to 2 wk after treatment (WAT), CGA-362622 at 7.5 and 15 g/ha injured all cotton cultivars 7 to 9% and 13 to 15%, respectively. Cotton injury symptoms included chlorosis and minor stunting. At 3 to 4 WAT, injury from CGA-362622 at 7.5 and 15 g/ha was 2 to 6% and 7 to 9%, respectively. Except for Paymaster 1220 RR, Deltapine NuCotn 33B, and Stoneville 474, all cotton cultivars were injured more by the higher rate than by the lower rate of CGA-362622. Injury was not visibly apparent 6 to 8 WAT. CGA-362622 at either rate had no effect on cotton lint yield.

Keywords

CGA-362622 (proposed common name trifloxysulfuron), N-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium saltcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Deltapine 51’, ‘Deltapine NuCotn 33B’, ‘Paymaster 1220 RR’, ‘Paymaster 1220 BG/RR’, ‘Stoneville BXN 47’, ‘Stoneville 474’, ‘Sure-Grow 125’Crop injury, crop yieldALS, acetolactate synthaseBXN, bromoxynil-resistantLAYBY, late postemergence directedPOST, postemergence; WAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 180 - 183
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. 1998. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth. pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50. In press.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Spears, J. F., Isleib, T. G., and Langston, V. B. 2000. Diclosulam does not influence yields in eight virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars. Weed Technol. 14: 402–405.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. A. and Gorski, S. F. 1989. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) endosperm mutants to chloroacetamide and thiocarbamate herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 475–478.Google Scholar
Bloodworth, K. M., Reynolds, D. B., Holloway, J. C., and Cobill, R. M. 2000. Cotton weed control in Mississippi with CGA-362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:28.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. 2000. Variety selection. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 23–34.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. pp. 837–840.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. W. and Bartlett, A. C. 1999. Genetic approaches to managing arthropod pests. In Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 487–519.Google Scholar
Corkern, C. B., Reynolds, D. B., Bloodworth, K. M., and Snipes, C. E. 1998. Staple use in transgenic weed control programs. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 54–55.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 nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 411–420.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
Edmisten, K. 2000. Planting decisions. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 20–34.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, W. S. 1974. Differences in the tolerance of metribuzin by varieties in soybeans. Weed Res. 14: 181–184.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Environment affects cotton and velvetleaf response to pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. 44: 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 163–165.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci. 3: 132–138.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Colvin, D. L., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1993. Comparative response of three peanut cultivars to multiple herbicide applications. Peanut Sci. 20: 17–20.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Holbrook, C. C., Mullinix, B. G. Jr., and Cardinia, J. 1992. Response of eight peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19: 111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7: 216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knauft, D. A., Colvin, D. L., and Gorbet, D. W. 1990. Effect of paraquat on yield and market grade of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) genotypes. Weed Technol. 4: 866–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 7: 153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. K., Wilson, C. F., and Milligan, J. L. 1998. Weed control in BXN cotton with Buctril/Staple combinations and sequential applications. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:54.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynilresistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47: 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2000. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 163–165.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed response to CGA-362622 alone and in combinations with bromoxynil, glyphosate, and pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:58.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., Grichar, W. J., Culbreath, A. C., and Wiley, G. 1994. Peanut variety response to AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:226.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., Schultheis, J. R., and Worsham, A. D. 1993. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar tolerance to application timing of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 7: 840–843.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. D., Reynolds, D. B., Bloodworth, K. M., and Snipes, C. E. 1998. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of pyrithiobac in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:210.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1,028 p.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Porterfield, D. 2000. Weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton with CGA 362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:27.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 69–111.Google Scholar