Abstract
Abstract Sensitive cotton varieties planted into soil treated with 2,4-D or dicamba utilized in burndowns can result in stunting and stand loss if use rate is too high and the plant-back interval is too short. The objective of this study was to evaluate cotton stunting and yield responses resulting from 2,4-D or dicamba residues in soil after preplant burndown applications at three locations in 2016 and 2017. Treatments with 2,4-D included 532 and 1,063 g ae ha −1 applied 3 wk before planting (WBP) and 53, 160, 266, 532, 1,063 g ae ha −1 applied at planting. Dicamba treatments included 560 and 1,120 g ae h −1 applied 3 WBP and 56, 168, 280, 560, 1,120 g ae ha −1 applied at planting. Dicamba or 2,4-D treatments applied 3 WBP resulted in no adverse effects on cotton stand, plant height, or yield. Dicamba 560 g ae h −1 applied at planting reduced cotton stand by 36% at 21 to 24 d after planting (DAP) over all locations in 2016. In 2017, stands were reduced by dicamba at 168, 280, 560, and 1,120 g ae ha −1 by 17% to 25% at 20 to 23 DAP. Moreover, cotton stands were not affected by 2,4-D in 2016, and only 266, 532, and 1,063 g ae ha −1 of 2,4-D caused stand reductions of 26% to 36% at 20 to 23 DAP over all locations in 2017. Dicamba at 560 g ae ha −1 at planting was the only treatment in this study that reduced plant height. Although stand losses were observed in both years, no yield loss occurred. The data suggest that stunting and stand reduction may occur if susceptible varieties are planted soon after burndown applications with 2,4-D or dicamba, but yield may not be affected after a full growing season. Dicamba showed greater potential to cause stunting and stand reduction than 2,4-D.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba three weeks before planting caused no adverse cotton stand, height or yield response.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- Dicambae0
- Outcome
- cotton stand, plant height, or yielde0
- Direction
- no adverse effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dicamba or 2,4-D treatments applied 3 WBP resulted in no adverse effects on cotton stand, plant height, or yield.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
2,4-D three weeks before planting caused no adverse cotton stand, height or yield response.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 2,4-De0
- Outcome
- cotton stand, plant height, or yielde0
- Direction
- no adverse effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dicamba or 2,4-D treatments applied 3 WBP resulted in no adverse effects on cotton stand, plant height, or yield.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba 560 g ae h −1 at planting reduced 2016 cotton stand by 36%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Dicamba 560 g ae h −1 applied at plantinge0
- Outcome
- cotton stande0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 36%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dicamba 560 g ae h −1 applied at planting reduced cotton stand by 36% at 21 to 24 d after planting (DAP) over all locations in 2016.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba rates from 168 to 1,120 g ae ha −1 reduced 2017 cotton stands by 17% to 25%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- dicamba at 168, 280, 560, and 1,120 g ae ha −1e0
- Outcome
- standse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 17% to 25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2017, stands were reduced by dicamba at 168, 280, 560, and 1,120 g ae ha −1 by 17% to 25% at 20 to 23 DAP.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
2,4-D did not affect cotton stands in 2016.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 2,4-De0
- Outcome
- cotton standse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton stands were not affected by 2,4-D in 2016”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Three 2,4-D rates reduced 2017 cotton stands by 26% to 36%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 266, 532, and 1,063 g ae ha −1 of 2,4-De0
- Outcome
- stande0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 26% to 36%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only 266, 532, and 1,063 g ae ha −1 of 2,4-D caused stand reductions of 26% to 36% at 20 to 23 DAP over all locations in 2017.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba 560 g ae ha −1 at planting reduced cotton height.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Dicamba at 560 g ae ha −1 at plantinge0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dicamba at 560 g ae ha −1 at planting was the only treatment in this study that reduced plant height.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield was not lost despite stand losses in both years.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- yield losse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although stand losses were observed in both years, no yield loss occurred.”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Dicamba had greater potential for cotton stunting and stand reduction than 2,4-D.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- stunting and stand reductione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- 2,4-De0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dicamba showed greater potential to cause stunting and stand reduction than 2,4-D.”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
2,4-D · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →2,4-D · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →dicamba · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →dicamba · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →dicamba · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- negative
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.