Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:01:18.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fruiting Response of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to Pyrithiobac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ralph L. Allen ,
Charles E. Snipes  and
Scotty H. Crowder
Ralph L. Allen
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
Scotty H. Crowder
Affiliation:
DuPont Research Farm, Greenville, MS 38701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1991 and 1992 near Stoneville, MS and Greenville, MS, to determine the impact of pyrithiobac on cotton fruiting, maturity, and yield. Trials were conducted in areas maintained weed-free with standard production practices to optimize yields. Pyrithiobac was applied at 105 or 210 g ae/ha either PRE or POST to cotton in the cotyledon to 2-leaf, 5- to 7-leaf, and matchhead-square (MHS) stages of growth. At one location, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acid (MSMA) and fluometuron plus MSMA were applied as standard comparisons. At the Stoneville location, injury 1 wk after treatment (WAT) with pyrithiobac ranged from 2.5% with 105 g/ha applied at cotyledon to 2-leaf to 26% with 210 g/ha applied at MHS. Injury was transient in nature and was rarely detectable 4 wk after treatment in either year. Injury was not evaluated at the Greenville location. At Stoneville, a reduction in height occurred with MHS applications of pyrithiobac and MSMA. There was no reduction in yield for any treatment compared to the untreated check in 1991 at Stoneville and in both years at Greenville. In 1992 at Stoneville, treatments of 210 g/ha pyrithiobac, MSMA, and fluometuron plus MSMA at all application timings reduced yield. Pyrithiobac at 105 g/ha applied PRE also reduced yield. Greatest yield loss occurred with treatments of MSMA applied at MHS. There were no yield reductions at either location with postemergence application of 105 g/ha pyrithiobac.

Keywords

Fluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N'-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureaMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidpyrithiobac{2-chloro-6-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)thio]benzoic acid}cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DES 119.’COTMAPcotton fruitingcotton maturitycotton tolerancemappingMHS, matchhead squarePDS, postemergence-directed sprayPOT, postemergence over the topWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 59 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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., Snipes, C. E., and Bryson, C. T. 1993. Weed control systems in cotton with Staple. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, New Orleans, LA. Jan. 10–14, 1993. Memphis: National Cotton Council of America. p. 1525.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
Bryson, C. T., Snipes, C. E., and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Effects of pyrithiobac on weed control and cotton growth and yield. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–13, 1991. Memphis: National Cotton Council of America. p. 957.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D., and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35:270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr., and Snipes, C. E. 1993. The effects of fluometuron and MSMA applied postemergence on cotton yield, fruiting and fiber quality. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, New Orleans, LA. Jan. 10–14, 1993. Memphis: National Cotton Council of America. p. 957.Google Scholar
Carey, V. F., Frans, R. E., McClelland, M. R., and Jordan, D. L. 1991. Cotton response and weed control with nicosulfuron (DPX-V9360). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:79.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S., and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton development and yield following fluometuron applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.Google Scholar
Henniger, C. G., Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1992. Influence of pyrithiobac application rate and method on cotton yield and fiber quality. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:28.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. N., McCarty, J. C. Jr., and Parrott, W. C. 1990. Effectiveness of fruiting sites in cotton: yield. Crop Sci. 30:365–369.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to pyrithiobac applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G., and Bryson, C. T. 1992. Herbicide use trends in cotton. In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis: Cotton Foundation. pp. 233–294.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. H., Crowder, S. H., and Williams, C. S. 1992. “Staple”—a new cotton herbicide from DuPont. In Herber, D. A. and Richter, D. J., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN. Jan. 7–10, 1992. Memphis: National Cotton Council of America. p. 1318.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., Rayburn, T., and Wehtje, G. 1990. Effects of chlorimuron applied postemergence to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:314–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L., and Mallipadi, N. M. 1991. Mechanisms of selectivity of imidazolinones. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 91–102.Google Scholar
Sims, B. D., Guethle, D. R., and House, J. L. 1991. Effects of over-the-top use of Cotoran and Probe on cotton yield, and lint quality. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–13, 1991. Memphis: National Cotton Council of America. p. 965.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