Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:41:17.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton and Weed Response to Glyphosate Applied with Sulfur-Containing Additives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wilson H. Faircloth ,
C. Dale Monks ,
Michael G. Patterson ,
Glenn R. Wehtje ,
Dennis P. Delaney  and
Jason C. Sanders
Wilson H. Faircloth*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
C. Dale Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Dennis P. Delaney
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Jason C. Sanders
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to assess two sulfur-containing additives for use with glyphosate applied postemergence to glyphosate-resistant cotton for the control of sicklepod and yellow nutsedge. Neither diammonium sulfate (AMS) nor ammonium thiosulfate (ATS), both applied at 2.24 kg/ha, increased control of either species. Effective control of both species was dependent on glyphosate (isopropylamine salt) rate alone, with optimum control at 1.26 kg ae/ha. Plant-mapping data further indicated that sulfur-containing additives generally had no effect on either cotton fruiting patterns or yield. However, applying glyphosate at any rate did increase seed cotton yield in 2 of 3 yr vs. no glyphosate. In addition, applying glyphosate at any rate resulted in an increase in the number of bolls vs. no glyphosate in the following plant-mapping responses: total number of bolls per plant, number of abcised bolls per plant, bolls at the top five sympodial nodes, and bolls at positions 1 and 2 on the sympodia. Glyphosate absorption and subsequent translocation, as influenced by the addition of the sulfur-containing additives, was evaluated using radiotracer techniques. Glyphosate absorption after 48 h was 86, 63, and 37% of amount applied in cotton, sicklepod, and yellow nutsedge, respectively. Absorption by sicklepod and yellow nutsedge was not affected by the addition of either of the additives. Absorption by cotton was reduced by ATS but was not affected by AMS. In yellow nutsedge and cotton, glyphosate concentration in the treated area and adjacent tissue was not affected by either additive. A greater portion of glyphosate was translocated away from the treated area in sicklepod with glyphosate plus AMS (32%) than with glyphosate plus ATS (21%). AMS and ATS may be used in glyphosate-resistant cotton without the risk of either crop injury or yield reduction. However, their use for increased control of annual weed species, such as sicklepod and yellow nutsedge, may not be warranted.

Keywords

Glyphosateammonium thiosulfatediammonium sulfatesicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin & Barneby # CASOByellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPEScotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 1218 BR’Ammonium thiosulfateCASOBCYPESdiammonium sulfateglyphosate absorptionglyphosate additivesglyphosate-resistant cottonAMS, diammonium sulfateATS, ammonium thiosulfateDAT, days after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 404 - 411
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

Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.Google Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 2000. Response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to atrazine, ammonium sulfate, and glyphosate. Weed Technol. 14:15–18.Google Scholar
Breeden, G. K., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Influence of fertilizer additives and surfactants on performance of Roundup Ultra and Touchdown. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:276–277.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. 2001. Report of the 2000 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 25:1207–1210.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., and Elmore, C. D. 2001. Characterization of leaf surface, wax compostion, and control of redvine and trumpetcreeper with glyphosate. Weed Sci. 49:156–163.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1988. Established foxtail barley, Hordeum jubatum, control with glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate. Weed Technol. 2:364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, D. W. and Harvey, R. G. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and annual weed control in glyphosate-resistant field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:482–487.Google Scholar
Goos, R. J. and Ahrens, W. H. 1992. Ammonium thiosulfate effect on herbicide longevity in soil. Agron. J. 84:459–463.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Raymer, P. 2002. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control in glyphosate-resistant soybean with narrow rows and postemergence herbicide mixtures. Weed Technol. 16:669–674.Google Scholar
Hoss, N. E., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Loughlin, T. M. 2003. Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 51:110–117.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.Google Scholar
Laerke, P. E. and Streibig, J. C. 1995. Foliar absorption of some glyphosate formulations and their efficacy on plants. Pestic. Sci. 44:107–116.Google Scholar
Leaper, C. and Holloway, P. J. 2000. Adjuvants and glyphosate activity. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:313–319.Google Scholar
Mulkey, J. L., Griffin, J. L., Miller, D. K., Clay, P. A., and Ellis, J. M. 1999. Weed control with glyphosate formulations and ammonium sulfate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:212.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:512–519.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hamman, W. M. 1981. Influence of non-ionic surfactants, ammonium sulphate, water quality and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, D. 2000. Activator adjuvants. Weed Technol. 14:785–791.Google Scholar
Pereira, W. and Crabtree, G. 1986. Absorption, translocation, and toxicity of glyphosate and oxyfluorfen in yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 34:923–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Hagood, E. S. 2000. Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol. 14:667–674.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Rader, L. F., White, L. M., and Whittaker, C. W. 1943. The salt index: a measure of the effect of fertilizers on the concentration of the soil solution. Soil Sci. 55:201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiter, H. D., Uffing, A. J. M., and Meinen, W. 1996. Influence of surfactants and ammonium sulfate on glyphosate phytotoxicity to quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Technol. 10:803–808.Google Scholar
Salisbury, C. D., Chandler, J. M., and Merkle, M. G. 1991. Ammonium sulfate enhancement of glyphosate and SC-0224 control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Technol. 5:18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.Google Scholar
Sanders, J. C., Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Delaney, D. P., Moore, D. P., and Wells, L. W. 2001. Effectiveness of ammonium thiosulfate to enhance weed control and reduce cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury. Weed Technol. 15:236–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satchivi, N. M., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Briskin, D. P. 2000. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate isopropylamine and trimethylsulfonium salts in Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi . Weed Sci. 48:675–679.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Pierce, F. J. 2002. Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 238–248.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. D. and Singh, M. 2000. Efficacy enhancement of glyphosate by adjuvants and N-fertilizers. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:144.Google Scholar
Turner, D. J. and Loader, M. P. C. 1975. Further studies with additives: effects of phosphate esters and ammonium salts on the activity of leaf-applied herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 6:1–10.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2001 Field Crops Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service: Web page: http://www.usda.gov/nass. Accessed: May 15, 2002.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Knepp, A. W., Wax, L. M., and Hart, S. E. 2003. Glyphosate translocation in common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in response to ammonium sulfate. Weed Sci. 51:151–156.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. 2000. Extension perspective on grower confusion in adjuvant selection. Weed Technol. 14:814–818.Google Scholar