Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:19:50.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clomazone as a Component in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Herbicide Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville, AR 72703
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Marilyn R. McClelland
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville, AR 72703
Robert E. Frans
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ark., Fayetteville, AR 72703

Abstract

Efficacy of herbicide programs containing clomazone PPI plus fluometuron PRE or clomazone plus pendimethalin PPI plus fluometuron PRE was compared with that of standard programs of pendimethalin PPI plus fluometuron PRE and norflurazon PPI plus norflurazon and fluometuron PRE. Cotton injury was less than 5% with all treatments when disulfoton or phorate was applied in the seed furrow. Control of fall panicum, goosegrass, large crabgrass, eclipta, entireleaf morningglory, ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, tall morningglory, prickly sida, redroot pigweed, smooth pigweed, hemp sesbania, spotted spurge, sicklepod, and velvetleaf and cotton yields with 0.8 kg ai ha−1 of clomazone plus fluometuron or 0.6 kg ha−1 of clomazone plus pendimethalin plus fluometuron equalled or exceeded that from the standard herbicide programs. POST-directed application of methazole at 0.8 kg ai ha−1 plus MSMA at 2.2 kg ae ha−1 increased sicklepod and morningglory control and cotton yield. Clomazone applied PRE at 0.6 kg ha−1 with fluometuron controlled broadleaf signalgrass, goosegrass, large crabgrass, prickly sida, and smooth pigweed equally with that of standard treatments of trifluralin or trifluralin plus norflurazon PPI and fluometuron PRE, whereas pitted morningglory control and cotton yield with clomazone plus fluometuron exceeded that with the standards.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the 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. Applewhite, C. D. 1986. Control of difficult soybean weeds using Command and tank-mixes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:81.Google Scholar
2. Applewhite, C. D., Tymonko, J., and Hatfield, L. D. 1988. Application timing, weed control and crop tolerance to Command on cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:83.Google Scholar
3. Baldwin, F. L., Boyd, J. W., and Guy, C. B. 1991. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. Univ. Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. No. MP44. Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv., Little Rock.Google Scholar
4. Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532538.Google Scholar
5. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408420.Google Scholar
6. Elsner, J. E., Smith, C. W., and Owen, D. F. 1979. Uniform stage descriptions in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 19:361363.Google Scholar
7. Griffin, J. L. 1986. Wild poinsettia control in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:475.Google Scholar
8. Harrison, M. A. and Hayes, R. M. 1992. Utilization of Command with selected in-furrow insecticides in no-till and conventional cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:44.Google Scholar
9. Hatfield, L. D. and Mitchell, H. R. 1992. Command 4EC herbicide: incorporation into cotton weed management programs. p. 12981299 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. H., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan. 8–12, 1991. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
10. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1991. Economics and efficacy of herbicides applied postemergence directed in cotton. p. 954956 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. H., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–12, 1991. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
11. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1992. Morningglory control with herbicides applied at planting. Ark. Farm Res. 41(2): 1112.Google Scholar
12. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., McClelland, M. R., and Johnson, W. G. 1990. Integration of clomazone into weed management systems for cotton. p. 348 in Brown, J. M., ed. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Las Vegas, NV. Jan. 9–14, 1990. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
13. Palmquist, D. L. and Hopper, D. M. 1986. FMC-57020–1985 EUP/TT results. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:522.Google Scholar
14. Porter, W. C. 1990. Clomazone for weed control in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 4:648652.Google Scholar
15. Slater, D. S. 1984. Susceptible and resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica) response to selected dinitroaniline herbicides. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh. 52 p.Google Scholar
16. Stall, W. M. and Hochmuth, R. C. 1991. Cucumber tolerance to selected herbicides and herbicide combinations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:203.Google Scholar
17. Westberg, D. E., Oliver, L. R., and Frans, R. E. 1989. Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 678685.Google Scholar
18. Wilcut, J. W. 1991. Weed management systems for Georgia cotton. p. 962 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. H., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., San Antonio, TX. Jan. 8–12, 1991. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
19. York, A. C. and Jordan, D. L. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to clomazone and insecticide combinations. Weed Technol. 6: 796800.Google Scholar
20. York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Frans, R. E. 1991. Insecticides modify cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to clomazone. Weed Technol. 5: 729735.Google Scholar
21. York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Murdock, E. C., and Johnson, E. M. 1992. Weed management in cotton with MON 13211. p. 1316 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. H., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan. 8–12, 1991. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
22. York, A. C. and Worsham, A. D. 1992. Weed management systems in no-till vs conventional cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:3334.Google Scholar