Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:51:37.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flumioxazin Preplant or POST-Directed Application Timing Followed by Irrigation at Emergence or After POST-Directed Spray Treatment Does Not Influence Cotton Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Price ,
John W. Wilcut  and
John R. Cranmer
Andrew J. Price*
Affiliation:
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832
John R. Cranmer
Affiliation:
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted in Lewiston, NC, from 1999 through 2002 to evaluate the influence of various application timings of flumioxazin preplant (PP) and postemergence-directed spray (PDS) on cotton injury. In experiment 1, flumioxazin was evaluated in a reduced-tillage system at 71, 105, or 140 g ai/ha in mixture with glyphosate, applied at 28, 14, or 7 d before planting (DBP), followed by irrigation at cotton emergence. Flumioxazin applied PP at any rate and irrigated at emergence injured cotton less than 7% at 2 wk after emergence (WAE) and less than 6% 5 WAE. In experiment 2, flumioxazin was evaluated in a conventional-tillage system at 71 or 105 g/ha as a PDS treatment applied to dry soil, wet soil, and dry soil irrigated immediately after application when cotton was 20 to 30 cm height. Cotton treated with flumioxazin PDS at either rate applied to dry soil, wet soil, or dry soil followed immediately by irrigation was not injured. In the third experiment, flumioxazin at 71 g/ha alone or in mixture with glyphosate at 1.12 g/ha was applied at 30, 21, 14, and 0 DBP in a conventional-tillage system. Flumioxazin applied alone or in mixture with glyphosate applied at any time did not injure cotton. In all experiments, cotton lint yields were not influenced by herbicide treatment.

Keywords

Flumioxazinglyphosatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., ‘Deltapine 5415 RRBG’, ‘Paymaster 1218 RRBG’, ‘Suregrow 125’Burndown treatmentLAYBY treatmentCOC, crop oil concentrateDBP, days before plantingMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidNIS, nonionic surfactantPDS, postemergence-directed sprayPOST, postemergencePP, preplantPRE, preemergenceWAE, weeks after emergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 310 - 314
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

Altom, J. V., Cranmer, J. R., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor® herbicide—the new standard for layby applications in cotton. Proc. Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 53:159.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Roundup Ultra® supplemental label 21137×3-20. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002a. Flumioxazin product label. Specimen Label, 2003-VLR-0001 9/02 (AV) Form 20020807. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002b. Flumioxazin product label. Specimen Label, 2003-VWP-0001 9/02 (AV) Form 20020807. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. 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.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184–190.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1985. Weed control programs for minimum-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:843–847.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:743–748.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1999. Report of the 1998 cotton weed loss committee. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:727–730.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
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional–tillage peanut. Weed Sci. 50:378–385.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Hinton, J. D. 2000. Weed management in strip tillage Roundup Ready (glyphosate-tolerant) cotton. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:1476.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:158.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2:174–185.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. 2002. Planting decisions. in York, A. C., ed. 2002 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service publication AG-417. Pp. 23–25.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response 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
Grichar, J. W. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 23:30–36.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., Hoskinson, P. E., Overton, J. R., and Jeffery, L. S. 1981. Effect of consecutive annual applications of fluometuron on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 29:121–123.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., MacDonald, G. E., and Altom, J. V. 2000. Evaluation of flumioxazin for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) layby weed control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:220–221.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway-Ducar, J. A., Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2003. Response of three runner-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 17:89–93.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:233–238.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Agriculture Statistics. 1998–2000. Web page: http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/crop_fld/fldannyr.htm. Accessed: July 16, 2002.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Pline, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Physiological behavior of post-directed flumioxazin in Gossypium hirsutum . Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 41:71.Google Scholar
Price, A. J. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin preplant burndown weed management in strip-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) planted into wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 16:762–767.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. D., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grain and fiber crops. Weed Technol. 7:625–632.Google Scholar
White, R. H. and Worsham, A. D. 1990. Control of legume cover crops in no-till corn (Zea mays) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:57–62.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical weed control. in Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 627–661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Price, A. J., Scott, G. H., and Cranmer, J. 2000. Valor™: a new weed management option for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:159–160.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. 741–742.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 1995. Cover crop and weed management in conservation tillage cotton-southeast. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:71–72.Google Scholar