Studies were conducted in 2019 and 2020 in Lewiston, NC, to determine the crop response of 4-hydroxyphenylpyrivate dioxygenase (HPPD)-resistant cotton to isoxaflutole (IFT) and other cotton herbicides as part of a cotton weed management program that included herbicides applied preemergence, early postemergence (EPOST), and mid-postemergence (MPOST). IFT was applied PRE at 105 g ha−1 alone and in various combinations with acetochlor, diuron, fluometuron, fluridone, fomesafen, pendimethalin, and pyrithiobac. EPOST treatments included IFT at 53 or 105 g ha−1 alone or in combination with glyphosate or glufosinate, or dimethenamid-P + glufosinate. Glyphosate + glufosinate was applied MPOST to all treatments except the nontreated control. Cotton injury from IFT applied PRE was minimal (0% to 3%). Injury following EPOST application of dimethenamid-P + glufosinate ranged from 3% to 5% and 6% to 9% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. In both years, injury from IFT applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST never exceeded injury from IFT applied PRE followed by dimethenamid-P + glufosinate. Isoxaflutole applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST at 105 g ha−1 resulted in 0% to 2% cotton injury, indicating that IFT can be applied either PRE or EPOST with minimal risk to cotton. Late-season cotton height and cotton lint yield were not affected by any herbicide treatment. The experimental HPPD-resistant cotton cultivar was minimally injured by IFT applied PRE and EPOST, it tolerated standard cotton herbicides, and yield loss was not observed. Given these results, HPPD-resistant cotton and IFT may be integrated into cotton weed management systems with minimal risk for cotton injury and provide an additional effective mechanism of action for managing troublesome weeds in cotton.

Cotton growers commonly use glufosinate-based programs to control glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth must be small (≤7.5 cm) for consistent control by glufosinate, and growers often miss the optimum application timing. XtendFlex™ cotton may provide growers a tool to control larger Palmer amaranth. Glufosinate, dicamba, and glufosinate plus dicamba were compared for Palmer amaranth control in a rescue situation. Herbicides were applied to 16- to 23-cm weeds (POST-1) followed by a second application (POST-2) 12 d later. Glufosinate-ammonium at 590 g ai ha−1 plus dicamba diglycolamine salt at 560 g ae ha−1 POST-1 followed by glufosinate plus dicamba POST-2 was more effective than glufosinate at 880 g ha−1 POST-1 followed by glufosinate at 590 g ha−1 POST-2 or dicamba alone applied twice. Following a directed layby application of glyphosate, diuron, and S-metolachlor 14 d after POST-2, Palmer amaranth was controlled 99% by any system containing dicamba or glufosinate plus dicamba POST-1 followed by dicamba, glufosinate, or glufosinate plus dicamba POST-2 compared with 87% to 91% control by glufosinate alone applied twice. Cotton height and number of main stem nodes at layby were reduced in systems with dicamba only POST-1 followed by dicamba or glufosinate plus dicamba POST-2, presumably due to competition from the slowly dying Palmer amaranth with dicamba only POST-1. These treatments also delayed cotton maturity and reduced lint yield compared with systems containing glufosinate plus dicamba at POST-1.

Glufosinate controls glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, but growers struggle to make timely applications. XtendFlexTM cotton, resistant to dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate, may provide growers an option to control larger weeds. Palmer amaranth control and cotton growth, yield, and fiber quality were evaluated in a rescue situation created by delaying the first POST herbicide application. Treatments consisted of two POST applications of dicamba plus glufosinate, separated by 14 d, with the first application timely (0-d delay) or delayed 7, 14, 21, or 28 d. All treatments included a layby application of diuron plus MSMA. Palmer amaranth, 14 d after first POST, was controlled 99, 96, 89, 75, and 73% with 0-, 7-, 14-, 21-, or 28-d delays, respectively. Control increased following the second application, and the weed was controlled at least 94% following layby. Cotton yield decreased linearly as first POST application was delayed, with yield reductions ranging from 8 to 42% with 7- to 28-d delays. Delays in first POST application delayed cotton maturity but did not affect fiber quality.

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.

In a 3-yr field study on a Bosket silt loam, dicamba (0.3 and 0.6 kg ai ha−1) and 2,4-D amine (0.6, 1.1, and 2.2 kg ae ha−1) were applied at 3, 9, and 16 d before planting cotton. Most treatments applied 3 or 9 d before planting caused cotton injury and yield reduction. Replanting was necessary when 2,4-D at 2.2 kg ha−1 was applied 9 d before planting, and all treatments except dicamba at 0.3 kg ha−1 when applied 3 d before planting.

Field experiments were conducted at Manhattan and Hesston, KS, in 2004, and at Manhattan, KS, in 2005, to evaluate cotton response to seven hormonal-type herbicides. Herbicides 2,4-D amine, 2,4-D ester, clopyralid, picloram, fluroxypyr, triclopyr, and dicamba were each applied at 0, 1/100, 1/200, 1/300, and 1/400 of the herbicide use rates on cotton in the six- to eight-leaf stage. Herbicide use rates were 210 and 280 g ae/ha for fluroxypyr and clopyralid and 561 g ae/ha, for 2,4-D amine, 2,4-D ester, dicamba, picloram, and triclopyr. At 14 d after treatment (DAT), all herbicides caused leaf cupping and epinasty, except triclopyr and clopyralid, which caused severe bleaching and chlorosis. The order of visual injury ratings was 2,4-D ester > 2,4-D amine > picloram > dicamba > fluroxypyr > triclopyr > clopyralid. By 56 DAT, slight injury symptoms were observed on plants treated with all herbicides, except all rates of 2,4-D, from which symptoms were severe. All rates of 2,4-D and the highest rate of picloram caused more than 60% flower abortion. Ranking of fiber yield reduction after herbicide treatment was 2,4-D ester > 2,4-D amine > picloram > fluroxypyr > dicamba > clopyralid > triclopyr. This research demonstrated that cotton is extremely susceptible to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D and picloram, whereas clopyralid and triclopyr caused early injury, with minimal effect on cotton yield.

CGA-362622 has been registered for postemergence (POST) over-the-top or POST-directed application in cotton. Research was conducted during 1998 in Texas to determine potential cotton phytotoxicity after POST application of CGA-362622 alone and with the insecticides acephate, dicrotophos, azinphos methyl, oxamyl, thiamethoxam, dimethoate, and malathion and to determine the response of four cotton cultivars to CGA-362622 applied alone. CGA-362622 applied with malathion injured cotton more than either pesticide applied alone, and yield was reduced in one of four locations when the pesticides were applied in mixture compared with nontreated cotton. Pyrithiobac or CGA-362622 mixed with malathion injured cotton similarly. The other insecticides tank mixed with CGA-362622 generally did not adversely affect cotton. The cotton cultivars ‘Delta and Pine Land 50’, ‘Paymaster 1220’, ‘Paymaster 1220RR’, and ‘Stoneville 474’ responded similarly to CGA-362622 applied alone or with insecticides.