Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T16:46:56.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton Injury and Yield as Affected by Simulated Drift of 2,4-D and Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Molly E. Marple ,
Kassim Al-Khatib  and
Dallas E. Peterson
Molly E. Marple
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 2004A Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
Kassim Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 2004A Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
Dallas E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, 2004A Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: khatib@ksu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted at Manhattan, KS in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate cotton response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift rates at different stages of growth and multiple applications of 2,4-D. Cotton was treated with 2,4-D and dicamba at 0, 1/200, and 1/400 of the use rate (561 g ae/ha) when plants were at the three- to four-leaf, 8-, 14-, or 18-node growth stages. Injury symptoms after 2,4-D and dicamba application were more severe at the three- to four-leaf stage compared with other stages with greatest injury from 2,4-D. In general, plants partially recovered from 2,4-D and dicamba injury symptoms, and only 2,4-D applied at the 1/200 rate reduced fiber yield. In a separate study, cotton was treated with 2,4-D at 0, 1/400, 1/800, and 1/1,200 of the use rate for one, two, or three applications. Yield reduction increased as herbicide rate increased from 1/1,200 to 1/400 and the number of applications increased from one to three. In both studies, plants partially or fully recovered from injury symptoms and recovery was greater with dicamba than 2,4-D. Correlation coefficient analysis showed that visual injury ratings later in the growing season are a good predictor of yield reduction (R 2 = 0.58).

Keywords

2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic aciddicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acidethephon, (2-chloroethyl) phosphonic acidtribufos, S,S,S-tributyl phosphorotrithioatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Gossypium hirsutumherbicide injurylow ratesstage of growth
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 609 - 614
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

Al-Khatib, K., Gealy, D., and Boerboom, C. 1994. Effect of droplet size and thifensulfuron concentration on phytotoxicity in pea. Weed Sci 42:482–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1993. Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) response to simulated herbicide drift. Weed Technol 7:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S. M., Clay, S. A., Wrage, L. J., and Matthees, D. 2004. Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron. J. 96:750–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatti, M. A., Al-Khatib, K., Felsot, A. S., Parker, R., and Kadir, S. 1995. Effects of simulated chlorsulfuron drift on fruit yield and quality of sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.) Environ. Toxicol. Chem 14:537–544.Google Scholar
Bhatti, M. A., Al-Khatib, K., and Parker, R. 1996. Wine grape (Vitis vinifera) response to repeated exposure of selected sulfonylurea herbicides and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 10:951–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeds, Z. A., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Stahlman, P. W. 2006. Wheat response to simulated drift of glyphosate and imazamox applied at two growth stages. Weed Technol 20:23–31.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. R., Fjell, D. L., Peterson, D. E., and Warmann, G. W. 1993. Cotton production in Kansas. Mahattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. MF-1088.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. D., Keeling, J. W., and Dotray, P. A. 2005. Effects of 2,4-D timings and rates on cotton growth and yield. Proc. South. Weed Conf 58.http://lubbock.tamu.edu/weeds/pdf/swssabstract205.pdf. Accessed: November 21, 2006.Google Scholar
Fagliari, J. R., Oliveira, R. S. Jr., and Constantin, J. 2005. Impact of sublethal doses of 2,4-D, simulating drift, on tomato yield. J. Environ. Sci. Health B40:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Chase, C. A., and Locascio, S. J. 2001. Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide. III. Pepper. HortSci 36:677–681.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K. C. and Arle, H. F. 1979. Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to dicamba. Weed Sci 27:604–607.Google Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1986. Response of cotton to selected herbicides applied to simulate drift. Mississippi Agriculture Experiment Station Bulletin B-946. Delta: Branch Experiment Station, MS.Google Scholar
Hutchins, R. 1953. 2,4-D herbicides pose threat to cotton and other susceptible crops. Science 118:782–783.Google Scholar
Jacoby, P. W., Meadors, C. H., and Clark, L. E. 1990. Effects of triclopyr, clopyralid, and picloram on growth and production of cotton. J. Prod. Agric 3:297–301.Google Scholar
Kelley, K. B., Wax, L. M., Hager, A. G., and Riechers, D. E. 2005. Soybean response to plant growth regulator herbicides is affected by other postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 53:101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, M. E. and Street, J. E. 2003. Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to glyphosate applied to simulate drift. Weed Technol 17:234–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanini, W. T. 2000. Simulated drift of herbicides on grapes, tomatoes, cotton, and sunflower. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf 52:107–110.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Downer, R. G., Leonard, B. R., Holman, E. M., and Kelly, S. T. 2004. Response of nonglyphosate-resistant cotton to reduced rates of glyphosate. Weed Sci 52:178–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NCDC 2007. US climate reference network. Station 1047.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/hourlystation_id1047. Accessed: March 08, 2007.Google Scholar
Orfanedes, M. S., Wax, L. M., and Liebl, R. A. 1993. Absence of a role for absorption, translocation, and metabolism in differential sensitivity of hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) to two pyridine herbicides. Weed Sci 41:1–6.Google Scholar
Rawson, J. E. and Schrodter, G. N. 1981. Preliminary study of the effects of simulated herbicide drift on cotton toxicity, residues. Proc. Aust. Weed Conf 6:137–138.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Peterson, D. E., Fick, W. H., Stahlman, P. W., and Wolf, R. E. 2006. Chemical weed control for field crops, pastures, rangeland, and noncropland. Report of Progress SRP 958. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Regier, C., Dilbeck, R. E., Undersander, D. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 1986. Cotton resistance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid spray drift. Crop Sci 26:376–377.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute 2002. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sciumbato, A. S., Chandler, J. M., Senseman, S. A., Bovey, R. W., and Smith, K. L. 2004. Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. I. Quantifying injury to cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:1125–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol 5:493–498.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci 40:106–109.Google Scholar
Staten, G. 1946. Contamination of cotton fields by 2,4-D or hormone type weed sprays. Agron. J. 38:536–544.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., Robinson, B. L., Pline-Srnic', W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wells, R., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Yield and physiological response of nontransgenic cotton to simulated glyphosate drift. Weed Technol 19:35–42.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2006. Agricultural Marketing Service. Cotton Program. http://ams.usda.gov/cotton/pdf%20forms/HVIguidejuly-2001.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2006.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1997. Effect of crop growth stage on tolerance to low doses of thifensulfuron:tribenuron. Weed Sci 45:538–545.Google Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 4:215–231.Google Scholar