Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-h6shg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-09T05:34:35.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence Herbicides Followed by Trifloxysulfuron Postemergence in Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hwilson@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to evaluate weed control and cotton response from PRE herbicides followed by (fb) trifloxysulfuron POST. In the first study, trifloxysulfuron at 3.8, 7.5, or 15 gai/ha was applied POST with or without pendimethalin at 690 gai/ha applied PRE in a factorial treatment arrangement. Visible crop injury occurred after all trifloxysulfuron applications, but injury was not affected by application of pendimethalin PRE. Cotton injury was 19 to 22% 7 d after POST treatment (DAT) from trifloxysulfuron at 3.8 to 15 g/ha but was 5 to 12% 28 DAT. Trifloxysulfuron controlled smooth pigweed, common ragweed, and common cocklebur, but spurred anoda, large crabgrass, goosegrass, and stinkgrass were not controlled by trifloxysulfuron. Morningglory species (tall morningglory, ivyleaf morningglory, and pitted morningglory) control with trifloxysulfuron at 7.5 and 15 g/ha was at least 79%, whereas velvetleaf was controlled 66% over all years. In a second study, clomazone, pendimethalin, pendimethalin plus fluometuron, pyrithiobac, or flumioxazin were applied PRE fb 7.5 g/ha trifloxysulfuron POST. Cotton injury from PRE herbicides fb trifloxysulfuron was 13 to 39% 7 DAT. Spurred anoda control exceeded 54% only with treatments that included flumioxazin or pyrithiobac PRE. Common lambsquarters, common cocklebur, and morningglory species were controlled at least 75% with all treatments that included trifloxysulfuron POST, whereas pendimethalin and clomazone usually controlled annual grasses. In both studies, the application of pendimethalin PRE controlled annual grass species and improved control of smooth pigweed and common lambsquarters over that controlled by trifloxysulfuron POST without a PRE herbicide.

Keywords

Clomazone, flumioxazin, fluometuron, pendimethalin, pyrithiobac, trifloxysulfuron, common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L AMBELgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHElarge crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHspurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. ANVCRstinkgrass, Eragrostis megastachya (Koel.) Linktall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth IPOPUvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘SG 125’Trifloxysulfuron

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 1 - 6
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184–190.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA 362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–276.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Brownie, C. 2003. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2:174–185.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil test recommendations for Virginia. Blacksburg, VA Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publication 834. 154.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, Volume 65, No. 4. Web page: http://www.epa.gov. Accessed: September 21, 2001.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. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Influence of application variables on efficacy of postemergence applications of DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., McClelland, M. R., and Frans, R. E. 1993c. Clomazone as a component in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) herbicide programs. Weed Technol. 7:202–211.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henninger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1993. Effects of DPX-PE350 on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth, yield, and fiber quality. Weed Technol. 7:930–933.Google Scholar
Nezu, Y., Saito, Y., Takahashi, S., and Tomoda, Y. 1999. Development of a new cotton herbicide, pyrithiobac sodium. J. Pesticide Sci. 24:217–229.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preeemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 49:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Flumioxazin preplant burndown weed management in strip-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) planted into wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 16:762–767.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003a. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of CGA 362622 in cotton, spurred anoda, and smooth pigweed. Weed Sci. 51:157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2003b. Combinations of CGA 362622 and bromoxynil for broadleaf weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:496–502.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004. Influence of adjuvants on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to postemergence applications of CGA 362622. Weed Technol. 18:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of morningglory species (Ipomoea sp.) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 42:227–232.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. 2002. Preemergence flumioxazin and pendimethalin and postemergence herbicide systems for soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:502–511.Google Scholar
Tredaway, J. A., Patterson, M. G., and Wehtje, G. R. 1997. Efficacy of pyrithobac and bromoxynil applied with low volume spray systems. Weed Technol. 11:725–730.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Vencill, W. K., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221–226.CrossRefGoogle 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. 343–400.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. 2002. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety and weed response to sulfentrazone and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 16:567–574.Google Scholar