Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:40:23.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Tolerance to Propazine Applied Pre- and Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. W. Keeling ,
K. S. Verett ,
J. D. Reed  and
P. A. Dotray
J. W. Keeling*
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, Lubbock, TX 79403
K. S. Verett
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, Lubbock, TX 79403
J. D. Reed
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Research, Lubbock, TX 79403
P. A. Dotray
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 near Lubbock and Lamesa, TX, to determine the effects of propazine alone and in combination with glyphosate applied PRE and POST on cotton growth, yield, and lint value (fiber quality). Propazine at 0.56, 0.84, and 1.12 kg ai ha−1 and in combination with glyphosate at 0.86 kg ae ha−1 was applied PRE, early POST, and mid-POST. Up to 11% injury was observed after propazine applied early POST and mid-POST at Lubbock in 1 of 2 yr, and up to 13% at all three application timings was observed at Lamesa in 1 of 2 yr. The greatest injury was observed 58 d after application following propazine at 1.12 kg ai ha−1 applied PRE; however, no injury was apparent 80 d after application. Cotton yield, lint values, and gross revenues were not affected by any treatment.

Se llevaron a cabo estudios de campo en 2007 y 2008 cerca de Lubbock y Lamesa, TX, para determinar los efectos de propazina solo y en combinación con glifosato, aplicado en preemergencia y postemergencia en el crecimiento del algodón, su rendimiento y la calidad de la fibra. Propazina a 0.56, 0.84, y 1.12 kg ia ha−1 y en combinación con glifosato a 0.86 kg ea ha−1 se aplicó en preemergencia, postemergencia temprana y postemergencia media. Hasta 11% de daño se observó después de la aplicación de propazina en las etapas de postemergencia temprana y media en Lubbock en uno de los dos años, y hasta 13% en los tres tiempos de aplicación en Lamesa en uno de los dos años. El mayor daño se observó 58 días después de la aplicación preemergente de propazina a 1.12 kg ia ha−1; sin embargo, a los 80 días de la aplicación ningún daño fue aparente. Ningún tratamiento afectó el rendimiento del algodón, ni la calidad de la fibra, ni los ingresos brutos obtenidos del cultivo.

Keywords

Glyphosatepropazinecotton, Gossypium hirsutum ‘FiberMax 9058 F’, ‘Americot 1532 B2RF’Cottoncotton toleranceglyphosateMilo-Propropazine
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 178 - 182
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

Abernathy, J. R. and Keeling, J. W. 1977. Rotational crop response to soil levels of trifluralin, profluralin, atrazine and propazine. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 30:60.Google Scholar
Abernathy, J. R., Keeling, J. W., and Ray, L. L. 1979. Cotton cultivar response to propazine and atrazine. Agron. J. 71:929–931.Google Scholar
Allen, R. L., Snipes, C. E., and Crowder, S. H. 1997. Fruiting response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 11:59–63.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2008. 2008 Upland Cotton Loan Schedule—Calculated Basis United States Warehouse Locations. Lubbock, TX: Plains Cotton Growers. 4 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009a. Caparol®4L herbicide product label. Syngenta Publication No. SCP 620A-L6T 0809. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta. 19 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009b. Cotton Pro® herbicide product label. MANA Publication No. 10403. Raleigh, NC: Makhteshim Agan of North America. 17 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009c. National Agriculture Statistics Service. U.S. & All States Data—Cotton. http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp. Accessed: February 17, 2010.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 2000. Report of the 1999 cotton weed loss committee. Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A. eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 24:1455–1456.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, E. W., Wiese, A. F., Owen, D. F., Becton, A. J., and Turner, W. E. 1972. Low-volume application of propazine and atrazine to sorghum. Weed Sci 20:12–16.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2006. Weed management with s-metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Weed Technol 20:232–241.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hannah, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L., Abernathy, J. R., and Gipson, J. R. 1980. Cotton response to selected s-triazine compounds. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 33:294.Google Scholar
Givens, W. A., Shaw, D. R., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., Young, B. G., Wilson, R. G., Owen, M. D. K., and Jordan, D. 2009. A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol 23:156–161.Google Scholar
Harris, C. I. 1966. Adsorption, movement, and phytotoxicity of monuron and s-triazine herbicides in soil. Weeds 14:6–16.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2010. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: April 19, 2010.Google Scholar
Holstun, J. T. and Bingham, S. W. 1960. Several triazines as selective post-emergence herbicides in cotton. Weeds 8:187–197.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Thullen, R. J., and Carter, C. H. 1986. Influence of planting date on growth of ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 34:906–910.Google Scholar
Kendig, J. A., Nichols, R. L., and Ohmes, G. A. 2007. Tolerance of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) seedlings to preemergence and postemergence herbicides with four modes of action. Online. Plant Health Progress. DOI: . Accessed: March 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Light, G. G., Mohammed, M. Y., Dotray, P. A., Chandler, J. M., and Wright, R. J. 2010. Glyphosate-resistant common waterhemp confirmed in Texas. Abstract 10493 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton conference. 2010. http://ncc.confex.com/ncc/2010/webprogram/Paper10493.html. Accessed: March 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Baumann, P. A., and Chandler, J. M. 2001. Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol 15:408–412.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. M. 1964. A new technique of controlling weeds in sorghum in a wheat–sorghum–fallow rotation in the Great Plains. Weed Sci 12:42–44.Google Scholar
Rowland, M. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 47:305–309.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T., Baker, R. V., and Steele, G. L. 2000. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 14:122–126.Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, L. M., Whitaker, J., Kichler, J. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 2010. Cotton and Palmer amaranth response to Milo-Pro applied at-plant and post. Abstract 10637 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton conference. 2010. http://ncc.confex.com/ncc/2010/webprogram/Paper10637.html. Accessed: March 2, 2010.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Britton, T. T., Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response and weed management with trifloxysulfuron, glyphosate, prometryn, and MSMA. Weed Technol 20:6–13.Google Scholar
Weed Science Society of America 1983. Herbicide Handbook, 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 410–413.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Harman, W. L. 1985. Minimum tillage cotton in the southern plains. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 9:199.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301–307.Google Scholar