Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T12:26:18.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Organic Arsenical Herbicides on Cotton Response and Chemical Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. S. Baker
Affiliation:
Delta Branch of the Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta., Stoneville, Mississippi
H. F. Arle
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Phoenix, Arizona; Shafter, California; and Beltsville, Maryland
J. H. Miller
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Phoenix, Arizona; Shafter, California; and Beltsville, Maryland
J. T. Holstun Jr.
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Phoenix, Arizona; Shafter, California; and Beltsville, Maryland

Abstract

The influence of timing and method of application of sodium or disodium salts of methanearsonic acid (MAA) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) response, arsenic content of seed, and arsenic content of soils, was studied in field experiments in California, Arizona, and Mississippi. Methods of application consisted of directed and topical sprays. Directed sprays were applied to cover the small weeds in the drill row with a minimum of contact on cotton leaves more than 2 to 3 inches above the ground. Topical sprays were applied from nozzles positioned over the cotton in such a way that the entire cotton plant was subject to coverage. Rates of application were either 2 or 3 lb/A of the salts, and either two or three applications were made to treated plots. Cotton appeared highly tolerant to directed applications. A topical application to cotton 2 to 4 inches slightly reduced yields, but topical applications made at later stages of growth caused progressively severe reductions in yields and delayed maturity. The arsenic content of cottonseed from treated plots was not significantly higher than in that from untreated checks providing that applications were restricted to prebloom stages. Either directed or topical applications made during the blooming stage resulted in detectable increases of arsenic in the cottonseed. The effect of the treatments on arsenic content of soils was relatively small in comparison with natural levels, but the effect was detectable at one of the three locations.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis. 10th ed. Assoc. Offic. Agr. Chem., Washington, D.C. 957 p.Google Scholar
2. Ehman, P. J. 1966. Residues in cottonseed from weed control with methanearsonates. Proc. SWC 19:540541.Google Scholar
3. Ehman, P. J. 1965. Effect of arsenical build-up in the soil on subsequent growth and residue content of crops. Proc. SWC 18:685687.Google Scholar
4. Long, J. A., Allen, W. W., and Holt, C. E. 1962. Control of nutsedge in bermudagrass turf. Weeds 10:285287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. McWhorter, C. G. 1966. Toxicity of DSMA to johnsongrass. Weeds 14:191194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Reed, J. F. and Sturgis, M. B. 1936. Toxicity from arsenic compounds to rice on flooded soils. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 28:432436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Schweizer, E. E. 1967. Toxicity of DSMA soil residues to cotton and rotational crops. Weeds 15:7276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Stevens, George D. 1965. Progress in weed control research with organic arsenical herbicides. Proc. SWC 18:6667.Google Scholar
9. Widiger, Ray E. 1966. Weeds controlled by the methanearsonates. Proc. SWC 19:5156.Google Scholar