Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:39:20.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Cotton Responses to Fomesafen-Based Treatments Applied Preemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2018

Xiao Li ,
Timothy Grey ,
William Vencill ,
James Freeman ,
Katilyn Price ,
George Cutts III  and
Andrew Price
Xiao Li*
Affiliation:
Assistant professor, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University. Auburn, AL, USA
Timothy Grey
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of GeorgiaTifton Campus. Tifton, GA, USA
William Vencill
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia. Athens, GA, USA
James Freeman
Affiliation:
Extension Agronomist, University of GeorgiaExtension. Statesboro, GA, USA
Katilyn Price
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University. Auburn, AL, USA
George Cutts III
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University. Auburn, AL, USA
Andrew Price
Affiliation:
Research Physiologist, USDA-ARS Nation Soil Dynamics laboratory. Auburn, AL
*
Author for correspondence: Xiao Li, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University. Auburn, AL 36849. (Email: steveli@auburn.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fomesafen provides effective control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in cotton. However, cotton seedlings can be injured when fomesafen is applied PRE. Therefore, greenhouse and field experiments were conducted at Athens, GA, and at six locations in Alabama and Georgia in 2013 and 2016 to evaluate cotton growth and yield response to fomesafen applied PRE at 70, 140, 280, 560, 1,120, or 2,240 g ai ha−1, and in combination with pendimethalin, diuron, acetochlor, and fluridone at 1×label rates. Greenhouse bioassays indicated that fomesafen reduced cotton height and dry weight with increasing rate in Cecil sandy loam and Tifton loamy sand but not in Greenville sandy clay loam––possibly as a result of this soil’s higher organic matter (OM) and clay content. Fomesafen applied at 2,240 g ai ha−1 reduced cotton stand by as much as 83% compared to the nontreated check (NTC) at all field locations except Alabama’s Macon and Baldwin counties, and 1,120 g ai ha−1 reduced cotton stand only at Pulaski County, GA, by 52%. Cotton height was reduced by the two highest rates of fomesafen at all locations except Clarke County, GA, and Baldwin County, AL. Injury data indicated more visual injury followed increasing fomesafen rates, and high-rate treatments produced more injury in sandier soils. Cotton yield was unaffected by herbicide treatments at any location, except for the 1,120 g ai ha−1 rate at Pulaski County (49% yield loss compared to NTC), 2,240 g ai ha−1 at Pulaski County (72% yield loss), and Tift County (29% yield loss). These data indicated cotton yield should not be negatively affected by fomesafen applied PRE alone within label rates or in combination with pendimethalin, diuron, acetochlor, and fluridone at 1×label rates, although some visual injury, or stand or height reduction may occur early in the growing season.

Keywords

Jason Bond, Delta Research and Extension CenterAcetochlordiuronfluridonefomesafenglyphosatependimethalinPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Fomesafenpreemergencesoil herbicidecotton seedlingvisual injuryheightstandyield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 431 - 438
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Anonymous (2017a) Reflex label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. http://www.syngenta-us.com/current-label/reflex. Accessed: December 29, 2017Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017b) Brake F16 label. Carmel, IN: SePro Corp. http://www.sepro.com/documents/BrakeF16_label.pdf. Accessed: December 29, 2017Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017c) Brake FX label. Carmel, IN: SePro Corp. http://www.sepro.com/documents/BrakeFX_Label.pdf. Accessed: December 29, 2017Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017d) Brake label. Carmel, IN: SePro Corp. http://sepro.com/documents/Brake_Label.pdf. Accessed: December 29, 2017Google Scholar
Askew, SD, Wilcut, JW, Cranmer, JR (2002) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184–190 Google Scholar
Bartels, P, Watson, C (1978) Inhibition of carotenoid synthesis by fluridone and norflurazon. Weed Sci 26:198–203 Google Scholar
Baumann, PA, Keeling, JW, Morgan, GD, Smith, JW (1998) Evaluation of fomesafen for weed control in Texas cotton. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 51:43–44 Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892 Google Scholar
Braswell, LR, Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Seagroves, RW (2016) Fluridone and encapsulated acetochlor reduce protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor use in a glufosinate-based Palmer amaranth management program for cotton. Weed Technol 30:838–847 Google Scholar
Cranmer, JR, Altom, JV, Braun, JC, Pawlak, JA (2000) Valor herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 53:158 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS (2009) Impact of EPA’s ecological risk assessment for fomesafen. Subject: re-registration of fomesafen (Docket#EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0239) US-EPA. Washington, DC 20460. http://www.georgiacottoncommission.org/images/E0010401/WEB_EPAFomefesen_Culpepper_8_16_09.pdf. Accessed: December 29, 2017Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, MacRae, AW, Kichler, J (2008) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth response to weed management programs in Roundup Ready and Liberty Link Cotton. page 1689 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, January 8–11, 2008, Nashville, TN. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, York, AC, Wilcut, JW (2009) Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol 23:391–397 Google Scholar
Gardner, AP, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Monks, DW (2006) Management of annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. in glufosinate-resistant cotton. J Cotton Sci 10:328–338 Google Scholar
Hill, ZT, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T, Gbur, E (2017) Assessing the potential for fluridone to reduce the number of postemergence herbicide applications in glyphosate-resistant cotton. J Cotton Sci 21:175–182 Google Scholar
Kichler, JM, Culpepper, AS, Chafin, JE (2010) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth and cotton response to residual at-plant herbicides applied on the soil surface or preplant incorporated. Page 1654 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, New Orleans, LA, January 7–10, 2010. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Kichler, JM, Culpepper, AS (2012) How tillage and application timing of Reflex affects Palmer amaranth control and cotton injury. Page 1543 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Orlando, FL, January 3–6, 2012. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Kowalczyk-Schroder, S, Sandmann, G (1992) Interference of fluridone with the desaturation of phytoene by membranes of the cyanobacterium Aphanocapsa . Pestic Biochem Physiol 42:7–12 Google Scholar
Li, X (2014) Evaluation of Efficacy, Soil Behavior and Dissipation of Herbicides in Agronomic Crops. Ph.D dissertation. Athens, GA: The University of GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
Lunsford, JN, Harrison, S, Smith, JD (1998) Reflex use in cotton. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 51:12–13 Google Scholar
Main, CL, Faircloth, JC, Steckel, LE, Culpepper, AS, York, AC (2012) Cotton tolerance to fomesafen applied preemergence. J Cotton Sci 16:80–87 Google Scholar
Marshall, MW (2009) Complementary herbicide programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watts.) control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton and soybeans. Proc Weed Sci Soc Am 49:99 Google Scholar
McCowen, MC, Young, CL, West, SD, Parka, SJ, Arnold, WR (1979) Fluridone, a new herbicide for aquatic plant management. J Aquat Plant Manage 17:27–30 Google Scholar
Murdock, EC, Keeton, A (1998) Where does fomesafen fit in South Carolina cotton weed management programs? Proc South Weed Sci Soc 51:12 Google Scholar
Schrage, BW, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Johnson, DB, Bagavathiannan, MV, Riar, DS (2012) Factors contributing to cotton injury from soil-applied residual herbicides. Summaries of Arkansas Cotton Research 2012:102–106 Google Scholar
Senseman, SA ed (2007) Herbicide Handbook 9th edn, Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. p 207 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Kichler, JM, Wallace, RD, Culpepper, AS (2011) Multiple resistance in Palmer amaranth to glyphosate and pyrithiobac confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 59:321–325 Google Scholar
Stephenson, DO, Patterson, MG, Faircloth, WH, Lunsford, JN (2004) Weed management with fomesafen preemergence in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 18:680–686 Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Nelson, R (2001) Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol 15:95–102 Google Scholar
Troxler, SC, Askew, SD, Wilcut, JW, Smith, WD, Paulsgrove, MD (2002) Clomazone, fomesafen and bromoxynil systems for bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 16:838–844 Google Scholar
USDA-NASS (2016) 2015 Agricultural Chemical Use Survey. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2015_Cotton_Oats_Soybeans_Wheat_Highlights/ChemUseHighlights_Cotton_2015.pdf. Accessed: December, 10, 2017Google Scholar
USDA-NASS (2017) Agricultural Chemical Usage Program. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/index.php#description. Accessed: December 10, 2017Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Askew, SD, Price, AJ, Scott, GH, Cranmer, J (2000) Valor: new weed management option for cotton. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 53:159–160 Google Scholar
Wise, AM, Grey, TL, Prostko, EP, Vencill, WK, Webster, TM (2009) Establishing the geographic distribution level of acetolactate synthase resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions in Georgia. Weed Technol 23:214–220 Google Scholar