Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-2bcm2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T00:15:07.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flumioxazin Preplant Burndown Weed Management in Strip-Tillage Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Planted into Wheat (Triticum aestivum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Price ,
John W. Wilcut  and
John R. Cranmer
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
John R. Cranmer
Affiliation:
Valent USA Corporation, Suite 250-3, 1135 Kildaire Farm Road, Cary, NC 27511
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted at two locations in North Carolina from 1999 to 2000 to evaluate flumioxazin preplant (PP) for weed management in strip-tillage cotton planted in winter-wheat cover. Flumioxazin PP was evaluated at two rates alone and in mixture with two commonly used PP herbicides and one experimental PP herbicide. Flumioxazin PP at 71 or 105 g ai/ha tank mixed with the isopropylamine salt of glyphosate at 1.12 kg ai/ha, paraquat at 1.05 kg ai/ha, or the trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosate at 1.12 kg ai/ha controlled common chickweed, common lambsquarters, common ragweed, Palmer amaranth, and smooth pigweed ≥ 96% 29 to 43 d after treatment (DAT). Both glyphosate formulations and paraquat alone provided ≥ 91% control of common chickweed and henbit 29 to 43 DAT, but control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, and smooth pigweed was ≤50%. Treatments including flumioxazin injured cotton (≤ 5%) at one location. In all comparisons within a location, cotton treated with flumioxazin PP at 71 or 105 g/ha in mixture with either glyphosate formulation or with paraquat provided equivalent or higher yields than did cotton not treated with flumioxazin PP.

Keywords

Flumioxazinglyphosateparaquatcommon chickweed, Stellaria media L. Vill. #3 STEMEcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELhenbit, Lamium amplexicaule L. # LAMAMlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri L. # AMAPAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 1218 RRBG’, ‘Paymaster 1220 RRBG’wheat, Triticum aestivum LBurndown treatmentcover cropsCOC, crop-oil concentrateDAT, days after treatmentglyphosate-IP, isopropylamine salt of glyphosateglyphosate-TM, trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosatePDS, postemergence-directed sprayPOST, postemergencePP, preplantPRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 762 - 767
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

Altom, J. V., Cranmer, J. R., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor® herbicide—the new standard for layby applications in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 159.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Roundup Ultra® supplemental label 21137X3-20. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Valor® label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 308–313.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 13: 594–598.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16: 184–190.Google Scholar
Bradley, J. F. 1995. Success with no-till cotton. In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Arkansas: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Special Rep. 160. pp. 31–33.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1985. Weed control programs for minimum-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33: 843–847.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18: 149–154.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Savage, K. E. 1980. Phytotoxic interaction between phenylurea herbicides in a cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)–soybean (Glycine max) sequence. Weed Sci. 28: 521–526.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut. Weed Sci. 50: 378–385.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Hinton, J. D. 2000. Weed management in strip tillage roundup ready (glyphosate-tolerant) cotton. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 1476.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 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, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2: 174–185.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grichar, J. W. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 23: 30–36.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., Hoskinson, P. E., Overton, J. R., and Jeffery, L. S. 1981. Affect of consecutive annual applications of fluometuron on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 29: 121–123.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway, J. A., MacDonald, G. E., and Altom, J. V. 2000. Evaluation of flumioxazin for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) layby weed control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 220–221.Google Scholar
Naderman, G. C., Hodges, S. C., Edmisten, K. L., and York, A. C. 2002. Cotton production with conservation tillage. In 2002 Cotton Information. North Carolina: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-417. pp. 174–183.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 233–238.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Agriculture Statistics. 1998–2000. Web page: http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/crop_fld/fldannyr.htm.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001a. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49: 549–557.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001b. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15: 360–364.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program in North Carolina peanut. Weed Sci. 50: 91–100.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. D., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grain and fiber crops. Weed Technol. 7: 625–632.Google Scholar
White, R. H. and Worsham, A. D. 1990. Control of legume cover crops in no-till corn (Zea mays) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4: 57–62.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Price, A. J., Scott, G. H., and Cranmer, J. 2000. Valor™: a new weed management option for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 159–160.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 741–742.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 1995. Cover crop and weed management in conservation tillage cotton—southeast. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 71–72.Google Scholar