Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:13:55.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of Preemergence Herbicide and Postemergence Glyphosate Programs in Second-Generation Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Derek M. Scroggs ,
Donnie K. Miller ,
James L. Griffin ,
John W. Wilcut ,
David C. Blouin ,
Alexander M. Stewart  and
P. Roy Vidrine
Derek M. Scroggs*
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences, 104 Sturgis Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27694-7620
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, LSU AgCenter, 161 Ag. Admin. Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Alexander M. Stewart
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
P. Roy Vidrine
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted in 2004 and 2005 to evaluate the benefit of applying fluometuron PRE versus glyphosate-only POST programs in second-generation GR cotton (Roundup Ready Flex®). Fluometuron was either included or excluded with POST application timings of glyphosate at the following cotton growth stages: (1) 3 leaf (lf) followed by (fb) 7 lf fb 14 lf (over the top) OT (2) 3 fb 7 lf OT (3) 7 lf OT fb 14 lf postemergence directed (PD), and (4) 7 fb 14 lf OT. Control of goosegrass, Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, sicklepod, and smellmelon was increased 2 to 8 percentage points with the addition of fluometuron PRE. The inclusion of fluometuron PRE did not improve control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, hemp sesbania, johnsongrass, or redroot pigweed and control ranged from 81% to 84%, 69% to 75%, 94% to 94%, 87% to 89%, and 92% to 93%, respectively. By 56 d after the last POST application, control of johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, and smellmelon was at least 83%, 93%, 92%, and 86%, respectively, with only slight differences noted among POST glyphosate programs. Control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, and redroot pigweed was 68%, 47%, 86%, respectively, with the POST glyphosate program of 3 fb 7 lf OT, which was significantly less than all other glyphosate POST programs. Cotton yield increased 32% and 36% with the addition of fluometuron PRE to glyphosate POST programs consisting of 7 lf OT fb 14 lf PD and 7 lf fb 14 lf OT, respectively. Cotton yield for other glyphosate POST programs including an earlier 3 lf application was not improved when fluometuron was applied PRE. Without inclusion of fluometuron PRE, yield was maximized with the glyphosate POST program that included three applications of glyphosate (2,510 kg/ha). Overall, this research emphasizes the fact that weed control is important in the early season as well as in the late season in second-generation GR cotton.

Keywords

FluometuronglyphosatebarnyardgrassEchinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGbrowntop millet, Urochloa ramosa (L.) Nguyen PANRAgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINhemp sesbania, Sesbania herbacea (P. Mill.) McVaugh SEBEXjohnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby CASOBsmellmelon, Cucumis melo L. CUMMDcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Herbicide-tolerant cottonresidual weed control
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 877 - 881
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

Anonymous 2004. Specimen label for Roundup Weathermax herbicide. St. Louis, MO Monsanto Co EPA registration number 524–537.Google Scholar
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 notilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:258–262.Google Scholar
Croon, K. A., Ihrig, R., Coots, C. B., Pitts, D., Haines, D., Hawf, L., Corkern, C., Mills, A., Montgomery, R., Ganann, L., Jost, D., and Murdock, S. 2003. Weed management in Roundup Ready Flex cotton. in. Proceedings—Beltwide Cotton Conference 2003. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 2246.Google Scholar
Croon, K. A., Ihrig, R. A., and Mullins, J. W. 2005. Roundup Ready Flex cotton technology. in. Proceedings—Beltwide Cotton Conference 2005. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 69.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. 2001. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:544–551.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., Everitt, J. D., Lyon, L. L., and Dotray, P. A. 2003. Tolerance and weed management in Roundup Ready Flex Cotton. in. Proceedings—Beltwide Cotton Conference 2003. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 2244.Google Scholar
Marra, M. C. and Phaneuf, D. 2005. Anticipated benefits from flex cotton: Results of a beltwide survey. in. Proceedings—Beltwide Cotton Conference 2005. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 431.Google Scholar
Martens, A., Hart, J., Sammons, B., Cerny, E., Huber, S., and Oppenhuizen, M. 2003. 2002 Results of Roundup Ready Flex cotton trials. Pages 2245. in. Proceedings—Beltwide Cotton Conference 2003. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Bauman, P. A., and Chandler, J. M. 2001. Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol. 15:408–412.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Mitchell, P. D., Young, B. G., and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Proactive versus reactive management of glyphosate-resistant or -tolerant weeds. Weed Technol. 19:924–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Thomas, J. 2003. Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton and attempted remediation by gibberellic acid (GA3). Weed Sci. 51:19–27.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362,622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.Google Scholar
SAS 2003. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combination with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Tingle, C. H., Steele, G. L., and Chandler, J. M. 2003. Competition and control of smellmelon (Cucumis melo var. dudaim Naud.) in cotton. Weed Sci. 51:586–591.Google Scholar
Toler, J. E., Murdock, E. C., and Keeton, A. 2002. Weed management systems for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with reduced tillage. Weed Technol. 16:773–780.Google Scholar
Viator, R. P., Jost, P. H., Senseman, S. A., and Cothren, J. T. 2004. Effect of glyphosate application timings and methods on glyphosate resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 52:147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. S., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in non-transgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. Pages 343–400. in Smith, A.E. ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York Marcel-Dekker.Google Scholar
Wood, M. L., Murray, D. S., Banks, J. C., Verhalen, L. M., Westerman, R. B., and Anderson, K. B. 2002. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) harvest and economic value. Weed Technol. 16:495–501.Google Scholar