Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:34:31.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Adjuvants on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to Postemergence Applications of CGA 362622

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Gregory R. Armel  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hwilson@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to evaluate cotton response to CGA 362622 applied postemergence with various adjuvants. In field studies, CGA 362622 was applied at 3.8 or 7.5 g ai/ha with nonionic surfactant, crop-oil concentrate (COC), or a urea-based adjuvant. A nontreated control was maintained weed free for comparison. Crop injury over all years at 1 wk after treatment (WAT) was 27 and 34% from 3.8 and 7.5 g/ha CGA 362622, respectively, when rates were pooled over adjuvants. At 4 WAT, injury was 6 to 14% with 3.8 g/ha and 10 to 21% with 7.5 g/ha CGA 362622 during the 3-yr study. Cotton heights at 2 WAT were reduced by 16 to 31% of nontreated cotton heights by CGA 362622. Heights of treated cotton did not differ and were generally equivalent to the nontreated control at 8 WAT. Cotton injury and height reduction were greatest when CGA 362622 was applied with COC. Cotton lint yields and fiber quality were not affected by CGA 362622 rate or adjuvant treatment. Cotton injury from CGA 362622 in the greenhouse was similar to that in the field. Initial cotton injury and subsequent reduction in leaf area or shoot dry weight were generally lowest when CGA 362622 was applied with no adjuvant or UBA in the greenhouse.

Keywords

CGA 362622 (proposed common name trifloxysulfuron sodium), N-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium saltcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘SureGrow 125.’Sulfonylurea herbicideALS, acetolactate synthase enzyme (EC 4.1.3.18)COC, crop oil concentrateMSO, methylated seed oilNA, no adjuvantNIS, nonionic surfactantOSS, organosilicone surfactantPOST, postemergenceUBA, urea-based adjuvantWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 9 - 15
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

Ahrens, , 1994. WSSA Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p. 313.Google Scholar
Alford, J. L. and Hayes, R. M. 2003. Efficacy of trifloxysulfurron-sodium (Envoke) in BXN and Roundup Ready cotton systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:280–281.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J., Bridges, D. C., and Grey, T. 2000. CGA 362622 for postemergence weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:26–27.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., Culpepper, S., and Brownie, C. 2003. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil Test Recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 834. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., and Monks, C. D. 2001. Evaluation of CGA-362622 for weed control in Alabama cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; Anaheim, CA; January 9–13, 2001. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1210.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:163–166.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temeperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci 3:132–138.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1996. Adjuvants and growth stage affect purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control with chlorimuron and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 10:359–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. and Burns, A. B. 1997. Influence of adjuvants on hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) control by chlorimuron. Weed Technol. 11:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Influence of application variables on efficacy of postemergence applications of DPX- PE350. Weed Technol. 7:619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Henninger, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, M. R., Barrentine, J. L., and Sparks, O. C. 2003. Weed management programs with trifloxysulfuron (Envoke) in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:293.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. P. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13:6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, B. L., Al-Khatib, K., Stahlman, P. W., and Isakson, P. J. 2000. MON 37500 efficacy as affected by rate, adjuvants, and carriers. Weed Technol. 14. 750–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, D. 2000. Activator adjuvants. Weed Technol. 14:785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed- free response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA- 362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Armel, G. R., Wilson, H. P., and Mines, T. E. 2003. Mixtures of CGA-362622 and glyphosate for weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schraer, S. M., Cloud, G. L., Minton, B. W., Porterfield, C. D., Martin, S. H., Driver, J. E., Lunsford, J., Black, D. L., and Johnson, M. 2002. Cotton response to CGA 362622: rates, timings, and tank-mixtures. in McRae, J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; Atlanta, GA; January 8–12, 2002. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. (Available on CD.).Google Scholar
Shankle, M. W., Hayes, R. M., Reich, V. H., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. MSMA and pyrithiobac effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development, yield, and quality. Weed Sci. 44:137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, R. J., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Roggenbuck, F. C. 1996. Influence of adjuvants and desmedipham plus phenmedipham on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet response triflusulfuron. Weed Sci. 44:489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strahan, R. E., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Miller, D. K. 2000. Influence on adjuvants on itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 14:66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, J., Foy, C. L., and Witt, H. L. 1996. Effect of organosilicone surfactants on the rainfastness of primisulfuron in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Technol. 10:263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. David, and Burton, J. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 51:13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. and Miller, D. K. 2001. Evaluation of CGA 362622 in Louisiana cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; Anaheim, CA; January 9–13, 2001. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1232.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Shaw, D. R., Baughman, T. A., Snipes, C. E., and Bryson, C. T. 2000. Influence of cultivation timing on pyrithiobac performance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14:116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. W., Holloway, J. C. Jr., Forster, P. C., Rawls, E. K., and Dunne, C. L. 2001. CGA 362622 for weed control in cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; Anaheim, CA; January 9–13, 2001. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1212.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Porterfield, D. 2000. Weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton with CGA 362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:27.Google Scholar