Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:11:10.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-resistant Horseweed (Conyza Canadensis) Control with Glufosinate Prior to Planting No-till Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
C. Chism Craig  and
Robert M. Hayes
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
C. Chism Craig
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed in no-till cotton has become a serious challenge for midsouth producers. Control of GR horseweed prior to no-till cotton planting (burndown) was examined with glufosinate applied at a standard rate (0.47 kg ai/ha) 30, 21, and 14 d before planting (DBP) and at 0.35 and 0.58 kg ai/ha 14 DBP. Glufosinate at 0.47 kg ai/ha was also tank-mixed with 2,4-D, dicamba, or flumioxazin 30 DBP, and with diuron, pendimethalin, prometryn, or glyphosate at 14 DBP. Glufosinate applied at the standard rate 21 or 30 DBP did not control GR horseweed (<55%), but did provide better control (85%) when applied 14 DBP. The high rate of glufosinate (0.58 kg ai/ha) applied 14 DBP controlled GR horseweed. Tank mixtures of glufosinate with dicamba or 2,4-D at 30 DBP controlled GR horseweed. Tank mixtures of glufosinate with either prometryn or diuron provided initial burndown and residual weed control. Tank mixtures of glufosinate + pendimethalin or flumioxazin did not increase control of existing horseweed, but did provide residual control 56 days after application.

Keywords

Horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. #3 ERICAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘FiberMax 966’Burndownherbicide application timingDAA, days after application
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 1047 - 1051
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

Anderson, D. M., Swanton, C. J., Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. 1993. The influence of temperature and relative humidity on the efficacy of glufosinate-ammonium. Weed Res. 33:139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Craig, C. C. 2005. Cotton UTCrops.com Web page: http://www.utextension.utk.edu/fieldCrops/cotton/index.htm. Accessed: September 27, 2005.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1990. Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbance. Weed Sci. 38:504–510.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants. Boston, MA PWS Publishers. 734.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2005. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds Web page: http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: September 16, 2005.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004. Response of selected horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L) Cronq.] populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Miller, K. V. 1999. Horseweed. Auburn, AL Craftmaster Printers. 42.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2000. SAS User's Guide, version 8.1. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J. 1997. Efficacy of glufosinate and weed control in transformed corn and soybean. Ph.D. dissertation. Urbana-Champaign, IL University of Illinois 23D-15 P. 52.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. 2005. Horseweed. University of Tennessee fact sheet, W106. Tennessee Agricultural Statistics Service Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov/tn/web2004bltn.pdf. Accessed: September 27, 2005.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. M. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wild, A., Sauer, H., and Rhule, W. 1987. The effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis. I. Inhibition of photosynthesis and accumulation of ammonia. Z. Natuforsch. 42:263–269.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar