Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:27:22.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of Cultivation Timing on Pyrithiobac Performance in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762
Todd A. Baughman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS 38776
Charles T. Bryson
Affiliation:
USDA/ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Address correspondence to David R. Shaw, Mississippi State University, Box 9555, Mississippi State, MS 39762.

Abstract

Pitted morningglory control with norflurazon or fluometuron preemergence (PRE), each at 1.12 kg/ha, was 72% or less 14 d after a postemergence (POST) application of pyrithiobac in 1993 and 1994. Pyrithiobac POST at 70 g/ha following fluometuron or norflurazon PRE cultivated at any timing controlled pitted morningglory at least 76%. Pyrithiobac POST controlled common cocklebur equal to the weed-free in 1993 at 14 d after the POST application. In 1994, when rated 28 d after pyrithiobac POST, cultivation 3 d before a single application of pyrithiobac controlled less common cocklebur than any other herbicide treatment containing pyrithiobac. At 28 d after pyrithiobac POST, no treatment controlled common cocklebur as well as the weed-free. In 1993 and 1994, seed cotton yield was equal to the weed-free when pyrithiobac followed fluometuron PRE cultivated at any timing or a single application of pyrithiobac cultivated prior to 7 d after POST application.

Type
Research
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.)

Footnotes

1 Journal Article 9415 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University.
Current address: Assistant Professor, 302 Life Sciences Building, Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.
Current address: Extension Agronomist, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Vernon, TX 76385.

References

Literature Cited

Altom, J. V., Baysinger, J. A., Jacobson, B. D., and Murray, D. S. 1991. Evaluation of DPX-PE350 for weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:74.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Staple® herbicide, technical information. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, DE. 4 p.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 32: 584591.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbolt, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25: 132134.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18: 149154.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 25: 132134.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35: 270276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5: 263269.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Response of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 27: 531535.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey-southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 291325.Google Scholar
Ferreira, K. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Effect of DPX-PE350 on the efficacy of graminicides. Weed Sci. 42: 222226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R. E., Morris, G., and Appleberry, M. 1971. Effect of topical herbicide applications on growth and yield of cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:92.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3: 501504.Google Scholar
Hairston, J. E., Sanford, J. O., Hayes, J. C., and Reinschmiedt, L. L. 1984. Crop yield, soil erosion, and net returns from five tillage systems in the Mississippi Blackland Prairie. J. Soil Water Cons. 39: 391395.Google Scholar
Hogue, C. W. 1971. Directed versus topical application of herbicide combinations in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24: 9398.Google Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. and Chandler, J. M. 1991. Susceptibility of eight morningglory species to DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:78.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7: 216219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7: 196201.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Johnson, D. H., Kendig, J. A., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1993c. Carryover of DPX-PE350 to grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and soybean (Glycine max) on two Arkansas soils. Weed Technol. 7: 645649.Google Scholar
Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Influence of cultivation timing on weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 8: 760765.Google Scholar
Rogers, N. K., Buchanan, G. A., and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Influence of row spacing on weed competition with cotton. Weed Sci. 24: 410413.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Newsom, L. J., and Smith, C. A. 1991. Influence of cultivation timing on chemical control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39: 6772.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of morningglory species (Ipomoea sp.) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 42: 227232.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1996a. Carryover potential of pyrithiobac to rotational crops on a Mississippi blackbelt region clay soil. Weed Technol. 10: 140144.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1996b. Off-site runoff losses of metolachlor and metribuzin applied to differing soybean (Glycine max) production systems. Weed Technol. 10: 556564.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1997. Effect of application timing on pyrithiobac persistence. Weed Sci. 45: 179182.Google Scholar
Whitaker, F. D., Heinemann, H. G., and Wischmeier, W. H. 1973. Chemical weed controls effect run-off erosion and corn yields. J. Soil Water Cons. 8: 174175.Google Scholar