Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T10:32:51.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Cotton and Sorghum to Post-emergence Applications of Paraquat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. J. Scifres  and
P. W. Santelmann
C. J. Scifres
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
P. W. Santelmann
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Get access

Abstract

Cotton and grain sorghum were treated with directed paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-dipyridylium cation) sprays in the field. Tall cotton was less susceptible to the herbicide than smaller plants. Some cotton varieties showed greater susceptibility to paraquat than others. In general, fiber quality was not affected by paraquat at ⅛ and ¼ lb/A, although there was some effect on the fiber coarseness of the more susceptible varieties. Increasing light intensity caused more leaf damage from cotton stem applications of paraquat. Directed paraquat applications invariably caused the outer sorghum leaf sheaths to show necrotic spots where treated. Treatments on 6-inch sorghum reduced yields, but plants treated when taller than 6 inches were not injured. Thirteen sorghum hybrid and open-pollinated varieties showed varying degrees of leaf and sheath burn due to paraquat treatments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1966 , pp. 86 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 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

1. Amling, H. J., Turner, J. L., and Taylor, T. D. 1963. Preliminary evaluation of two dipyridyl quaternary salts for post-emergent weed control in apple, peach and pecan plantings. Proc. SWC 16:164.Google Scholar
2. Baldwin, H. C. 1963. Translocation of diquat in plants. Nature 198(4883): 872–873.Google Scholar
3. Cronshey, J. F. H. 1961. A review of experimental work with diquat and related compounds. Weed Res. 1:68–77.Google Scholar
4. Funderburk, H. H. Jr., and Lawrence, J. M. 1963. Absorption and translocation of radioactive herbicides in submersed and emersed aquatic weeds. Weed Res. 3:304–311.Google Scholar
5. Funderburk, H. H. Jr., and Lawrence, J. M. 1964. Mode of action and metabolism of diquat and paraquat. Weeds 12:259–264.Google Scholar
6. Kay, Burgess L. 1964. Paraquat for selective control of range weeds. Weeds 12:192–194.Google Scholar
7. Mees, G. C. 1960. Experiments on the herbicidal action of 1,1′-ethylene-2,2′s-dipyridylium dibromide. Ann. Appl. Biol. 48:601–612.Google Scholar
8. Todd, Glenn W., and Arnold, Wilfred N. 1961. An evaluation of methods used to determine injury to plant leaves by air pollutants. Bot. Gaz. 123:151–154.Google Scholar
9. British Weed Control Council, weed control handbook, 3rd Ed. 1962. Woodford, E. K. and Evans, S. A., Ed. Blackwell Sci. Pub. Oxford. 226 p.Google Scholar
10. White, A. C. 1963. Diquat and paraquat. Synopsis of aquatic weed experiments. Proc. SWC 16:357–364.Google Scholar