Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:33:13.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixtures of CGA 362622 and Bromoxynil for Broadleaf Weed Control in Bromoxynil-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Gregory R. Armel  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to evaluate broadleaf weed control in cotton with postemergence applications of bromoxynil and bromoxynil plus CGA 362622. Bromoxynil was applied at 280 and 560 g ai/ha, and CGA 362622 was applied at 0, 3.8, and 7.5 g ai/ha in a factorial treatment arrangement. Cotton injury 7 d after treatment (DAT) during the 3 yr was 11 to 35% with the herbicide mixtures, but injury did not exceed 2% 28 DAT when averaged over years. CGA 362622 plus bromoxynil controlled velvetleaf, smooth pigweed, common ragweed, and common cocklebur at least 77% 28 DAT. Control of morningglory species was at least 87% with herbicide combinations, except in 2001 when control was only 60% with 280 g/ha bromoxynil plus 3.8 g/ha CGA 362622. Bromoxynil also controlled jimsonweed, but CGA 362622 did not. Spurred anoda control pooled over years did not exceed 53% with bromoxynil or bromoxynil plus CGA 362622 mixtures. Cotton yields generally reflected the level of weed control from the herbicide treatments. In these studies, mixtures of CGA 362622 with bromoxynil controlled several broadleaf weeds better than did either herbicide alone.

Keywords

BromoxynilCGA 362622 (proposed common name trifloxysulfuron sodium), N-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium saltannual morningglory species, Ipomoea spp.common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHspurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. # ANVCRvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.IPOHEIPOLAIpomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.Ipomoea lacunosa L.Ipomoea purpurea (L.) RothIPOPUivyleaf morningglorypitted morningglorytall morninggloryDAT, days after treatmentPOSD, postdirectedPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 496 - 502
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

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: 293–298.Google Scholar
Branson, J. W., Smith, K. L., Barrentine, J. L., and Namenek, R. C. 2002. Cotton phytotoxicity with trifloxysulfuron as influenced by soil moisture, temperature, and tankmixes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 29.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J., Bridges, D. C., and Grey, T. 2000. CGA 362622 for postemergence weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 26–27.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Grey, T. L., and Brecke, B. J. 2002. Pyrithiobac and bromoxynil combinations with MSMA for improved weed control in bromoxynil resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 6: 91–96. Web page: http://www.jcotsci.org.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5: 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11: 335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra-narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil Test Recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 834. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., and Monks, C. D. 2001. Evaluation of CGA-362622 for weed control in Alabama cotton. In Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 1210 p.Google 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: 163–166.Google Scholar
Jones, J. 2000. Cyanazine Cancellation Order. Federal Register Document, Vol. 65. No. 4. Web page: www.epa.gov. Accessed: September 21, 2001.Google Scholar
Kendig, A. and Ohmes, A. 2001. CGA 362622 for early postemergence weed control in cotton. In Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 1211 p.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, R. D. 1992. Review of the 1991 field trial results on bromoxynil-resistant cotton. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 7–10, 1991; Nashville, TN. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 1316 p.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47: 596–601.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50: 642–647.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of CGA 362622 in cotton, spurred anoda, and smooth pigweed. Weed Sci. 51: In press.Google Scholar
Stalker, D. M., McBride, K. E., and Malyj, L. D. 1988. Herbicide resistance in transgenic plants expressing a bacterial detoxification gene. Science 242: 419–423.Google Scholar
Tredaway, J. A., Patterson, M. G., and Wehtje, G. R. 1997. Efficacy of pyrithiobac and bromoxynil applied with low-volume spray systems. Weed Technol. 11: 725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. and Miller, D. K. 2001. Evaluation of CGA 362622 in Louisiana cotton. In Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 1232 p.Google Scholar
Wells, J. W., Holloway, J. C. Jr., Forster, P. C., Rawls, E. K., and Dunne, C. L. 2001. CGA for weed control in cotton. In Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 1212 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 from 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. 2001. Weed Management in Cotton. North Carolina Cotton Production Guide. Web page: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu. Accessed: September 20, 2001.Google Scholar