Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:58:33.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Preplant Applications of Dicamba, 2,4-D, and Diflufenzopyr plus Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John D. Everitt  and
J. Wayne Keeling
John D. Everitt
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1102 E. FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403
J. Wayne Keeling*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1102 E. FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: w-keeling@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservation tillage systems, used successfully by cotton producers on the Texas southern High Plains, have facilitated the development of new weed problems including horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Studies were conducted in 2004 and 2005 near Lubbock, TX to evaluate winter weed control with (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D), dicamba, and diflufenzopyr plus dicamba. All of these herbicides have current registration restrictions limiting their use in cotton. Cotton response studies were initiated in 2003 and repeated in 2004 and 2005 to evaluate cotton injury and yield from dicamba (0.14 and 0.28 kg ai/ha), diflufenzopyr plus dicamba (0.10 and 0.20 kg/ha), and 2,4-D (0.56 and 1.12 kg/ha) applied 4, 2, and 1 wk before planting (WBP); and to determine the minimum interval between application of these herbicides and cotton planting without affecting yield. 2,4-D controlled both horseweed and Russian thistle, and could be applied as close as 2 WBP without injuring cotton. However, dicamba as well as diflufenzopyr plus dicamba were less effective on horseweed and Russian thistle as size increased and both injured cotton regardless of interval between application and planting.

Keywords

Dicambadiflufenzopyr plus dicamba2,4-Dhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICARussian thistle, Salsola iberica Sennen & Pau SASKRcotton, Gossypium hirsutum, L.Preplant burndownwinter annual weeds

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 506 - 510
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

Culpepper, S. A., Carlson, D. S., and York, A. C. 2005a. Pre-plant control of cutleaf eveningprimrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Cotton Sci. 9:223–22.Google Scholar
Culpepper, S. A., Prostko, E., Brecke, B., Norsworthy, J., York, A., and Jordan, D. 2005b. Weed management issues in reduced tillage systems in the southeast. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:105.Google Scholar
Culpepper, S. A. and York, A. C. 2005. Managing weeds in cotton in the southeastern United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:87.Google Scholar
Harbour, J. D., Messersmith, C. G., and Ramsdale, R. K. 2003. Surfactants affect herbicides on kochia (Kochia scoparia) and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Weed Sci. 51:430–434.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. 2005. Overview of tillage systems in the southeastern United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:99.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W. and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Preemergence weed control in a conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cropping system on sandy soils. Weed Technol. 3:182–185.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1989a. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 3:399–401.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Segarra, E., and Abernathy, J. R. 1989b. Evaluation of conservation tillage cropping systems for cotton on the Texas southern High Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 2:269–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Christianson, K. M. 1998. Diflufenzopyr increases perennial weed control with auxin herbicides. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51:59–61.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Deibert, K. J. 2005. Diflufenzopyr influences leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control by herbicides. Weed Technol. 19:329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, C. L., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2004a. Emergence patterns and early-season control options for horseweed in mid-south agriculture. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:5.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004b. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. cronq) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.Google Scholar
McClelland, M. R., Sparks, O. C., Barrentine, J. L., Smith, K. L., Matthews, S. G., and Talbert, R. E. 2004. Herbicide evaluation for control of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Arkansas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:259.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Mitchell, P. D., Young, B. G., and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Proactive versus reactive management of glyphosate-resistant or -tolerant weeds. Weed Technol. 19:924–933.Google Scholar
Nandula, V. K. and Manthey, F. A. 2002. Response of kochia (Kochia scoparia) inbreds to 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol. 16:50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. 2000. Current use of transgenic herbicide-resistant soybean and corn in the USA. Crop Prot. 19:765–771.Google Scholar
Sankula, S. and Gianessi, L. 2004. Impact of biotechnology-derived herbicide-tolerant crops on the southern region of the United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:271.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. and Banks, P. A. 1994. Effects of tillage systems and weed management on weed populations in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:541–547.Google Scholar
Yoder, D. C., MacDonald, G. E., Brecke, B. J., Wright, D. L., Hewitt, T. D., and Ducar, J. T. 2003. Peanut weed management under varying row patterns and tillage regimes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:31.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Stewart, A. M. 2004. Response of strip-tilled cotton to preplant applications of dicamba and 2,4-D. J. Cotton Sci. 8:213–222.Google Scholar