Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:59:21.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) Control in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with Pyrithiobac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Peter A. Dotray ,
J. Wayne Keeling ,
C. Gary Henniger  and
John R. Abernathy
Peter A. Dotray
Affiliation:
Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX 79409
J. Wayne Keeling
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock TX 79409-2122
John R. Abernathy
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments conducted in 1991, 1992, and 1993 evaluated Palmer amaranth and devil's-claw control and cotton injury with pyrithiobac applied PPI, PRE, or POST. Pyrithiobac at 36 or 71 g ae/ha applied PPI, PRE, or POST did not injure cotton. Pyrithiobac at 140 g/ha applied PPI or PRE injured cotton 9 to 11% 6 wk after treatment. Cotton recovered and no injury was observed 12 wk after treatment. Pyrithiobac applied PPI and PRE at 71 g/ha controlled Palmer amaranth at least 97% 6 wk after treatment. Palmer amaranth control with pyrithiobac applied POST was more variable and influenced by environmental conditions. Palmer amaranth control with 71 g/ha of pyrithiobac exceeded that with 36 g/ha. Devil's-claw control with pyrithiobac was better with POST applications than PPI or PRE applications. Pyrithiobac applied POST at 140 g/ha controlled devil's-claw 83–97%. These studies indicate that pyrithiobac can effectively control Palmer amaranth and devil's-claw in cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains when applied at appropriate rates and timings.

Keywords

Pyrithiobac, 2-chloro-6-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)thio]benzoic aciddevil's-claw, Proboscidea louisianica (Mill.) Thellung #3 PROLOPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. #3 AMAPAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster HS26.'Application methodapplication ratecotton injurypostemergencepreemergencepreplant incorporatedAMAPAPROLO
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 7 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Altom, J. V., Baysinger, J. A., Jacobson, B. D., and Murray, D. S. 1991. Evaluation of DPX-PE350 for weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:74.Google Scholar
2. Baker, R. S., Arle, H. F., Miller, J. H., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1968. Effects of organic arsenical herbicides on cotton response and chemical residues. Weed Sci. 16:37–40.Google Scholar
3. Baumann, P. A. and Williams, D. A. 1993. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) and lanceleaf sage (Saliva refexa) control in west Texas cotton cultures. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:32.Google Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. p. 47–72 in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R. eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
5. Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1994. Report of the 1993 cotton weed loss committee. p. 1679 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan. 5–8, 1994. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
6. Crowder, S. H., Mitchell, W. H., and Williams, C. S. 1992. DPX-PE350: A new cotton herbicide. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:343.Google Scholar
7. Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R., 1994. Weed and rotational crop responses to Staple in the Texas Southern High Plains. p. 1705 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan. 5–8, 1994. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., San Diego. CA.Google Scholar
8. Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1994. Efficacy of Staple in cotton and its phytotoxicity on rotational crops in the Texas Southern High Plains. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:51–52.Google Scholar
9. Everson, A. C., Holshouser, D. L., Chandler, J. M., and Bierman, R. H. 1991. Broadleaf weed control in cotton with DPX-PE350 in southcentral Texas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:77.Google Scholar
10. Federer, W. T. 1955. Experimental Design: Theory and Application. p. 282–283 in Split plot and split block designs. The MacMillan Company, New York.Google Scholar
11. Frans, R. E., Jordan, D. L., and McClelland, M. R. 1991. Influence of application method, rate, and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350, Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 31:13.Google Scholar
12. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd ed. p. 153 and 205 in Split-split-plot Design. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
13. Grymes, C. F., Chandler, J. M., and Holshouser, D. L. 1992. Weed control in cotton with sequential applications of DPX PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:27.Google Scholar
14. Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.Google Scholar
15. Henniger, C. G., Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1992. Efficacy of DPX PE350 in cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 32:4.Google Scholar
16. Holshouser, D. L. and Chandler, J. M. 1991. Susceptibility of eight morningglory species to DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:78.Google Scholar
17. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216–219.Google Scholar
18. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:196–201.Google Scholar
19. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Influence of application variables on efficacy of postemergence applications of DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:619–624.Google Scholar
20. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.Google Scholar
21. Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1993. DPX-PE350 for weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), Peanut Sci. 20:97–101.Google Scholar
22. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1971. Cotton response to temperature and organic arsenicals. Weed Sci. 19:297–300.Google Scholar
23. Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1993. Broadleaf weed control in cotton with DPX-PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:25.Google Scholar
24. Keeling, J. W., Henniger, 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
25. Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1991. Efficacy of DPX PE350 in conventional and conservation tillage cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:73.Google Scholar
26. Keeton, A., Murdock, E. C., and Stapleton, G. S. 1993. Control of coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis) in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:31.Google Scholar
27. Patterson, M. G., Norris, B. E. Jr., and Everest, J. W. 1991. Evaluation of DPX PE350 for weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:76.Google Scholar
28. Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and York, A. C. 1992. Efficacy of DPX PE350 in Georgia and North Carolina cotton. p. 1315 in Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. Jan. 7–10, 1992. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
29. Sims, B. D., House, J. L., and Gander, J. R. 1992. Weed control in cotton with DPX PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:30.Google Scholar
30. Snipes, C. E. and Allen, R. L. 1992. Broadleaf weed control in cotton with DPX PE350. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:26.Google Scholar
31. Snipes, C. E. and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1994. The influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci. 42:210–215.Google Scholar
32. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.Google Scholar
33. Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory (Ipomoea purpurea) resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:21–27.Google Scholar
34. Texas Agric. Stat. Serv. 1993. Texas crop statistics. Texas Dep. of Agric., Austin.Google Scholar
35. Vencill, W. K. 1992. Wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) control in southeastern cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:41.Google Scholar
36. Wells, R. G., Guy, C. B., and Beaty, J. W. 1991. Cotton response to DPX-PE350, fluometuron, and MSMA. Abstr. Arkansas Agric. Pestic. Assoc. 30:23.Google Scholar