Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:38:21.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Control and Species Shift in Bromoxynil- and Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Rotation Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Krishna N. Reddy*
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

A field study was conducted from 1999 through 2001 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the effects of bromoxynil-resistant (BR) and glyphosate-resistant (GR) cotton rotation systems under ultranarrow- (25-cm spacing) and wide- (102-cm spacing) row planting on weed control, weed density and shift, and cotton yield. The four rotations during 3 yr included BR–BR–BR, GR–GR–GR, BR–GR–BR, and GR–BR–GR, all with bromoxynil or glyphosate postemergence (POST) only or following fluometuron plus pendimethalin preemergence (PRE). Control of hemp sesbania, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and hyssop spurge was ≥97% regardless of row width, rotation, and herbicide program. Control of common purslane, sicklepod, and smooth pigweed was higher with glyphosate POST in GR cotton than with bromoxynil POST in BR cotton. Broadleaf and yellow nutsedge weed biomass were higher with bromoxynil POST in BR cotton than with glyphosate POST in GR cotton. Continuous BR cotton system resulted in higher densities of common purslane, sicklepod, and yellow nutsedge (15.3, 1.5, and 373 plants/m2, respectively) compared with continuous GR cotton (0.7, 0.1, and 1.0 plant/m2, respectively). Seed cotton yield was consistently higher in wide- than in ultranarrow-row cotton. Seed cotton yield was lower in continuous BR cotton than in the other three rotation systems, and yields greatly improved when BR cotton was rotated with GR cotton. During a 3-yr period, seed cotton yields with glyphosate POST only (4,000 to 4,890 kg/ha) or after PRE herbicides (4,480 to 4,860 kg/ha) were similar in GR cotton, whereas in BR cotton, bromoxynil POST only (1,390 to 4,280 kg/ha) resulted in lower yield than did bromoxynil POST after PRE herbicides (2,550 to 4,480 kg/ha). The results indicated that the shift in spectrum of weeds toward more tolerant species and yield decline in continuous BR cotton can be prevented by rotating BR with GR cotton.

Type
Research
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. 2000. Crop Protection Reference. 16th ed. New York: C and P. Pp. 18161830.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. 2003 Cotton Insect Control Guide. Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi State, MS. Web page: http://www.Msucares.com/pubs/publications/pub343.htm.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scoot, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512520.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308313.Google Scholar
Atwell, S. D. 1996. Influence of ultra narrow row on cotton growth and development. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 20:11871188.Google Scholar
Atwell, S., Perkins, R., Guice, B., Stewart, W., Harden, J., and Odeneal, T. 1996. Essential steps to successful ultra narrow row cotton production. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 20:12101211.Google Scholar
Bader, M. J., Roberts, P. M., and Harris, G. H. 2000. UNR cotton studies conducted in Georgia 1999. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 24:436437.Google Scholar
Blackley, R. H. Jr., Reynolds, D. B., and Rowland, C. D. Jr. 1999. Weed control systems in BXN cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:34.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B., Cole, T. L., and Alphin, J. 1998. Ultra narrow row cotton: economic evaluation of 1996 BASF field plots. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 22:8891.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Reddy, K. N., and Molin, W. T. 2003. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population dynamics in narrow row transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Weed Technol. 17:805810.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Porterfield, D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Bromoxynil, prometryn, pyrithiobac, and MSMA weed management systems for bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:712718.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. 13:411420.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14:1929.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. 15:544551.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P., Silvers, C. S., Sankula, S., and Carpenter, J. E. 2002. Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture, an Analysis of 40 Case Studies—Herbicide Tolerant Cotton. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC. Web page: http://www.Ncfap.org. Accessed: December 16, 2002.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M. and Gwathmey, C. O. 1999. Weed management challenges in UNR cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 23:740.Google Scholar
Heitholt, J. J., Pettigrew, W. T., and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1992. Light interception and lint yield of narrow-row cotton. Crop Sci 32:728733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, T. 1998. UNR cotton production system trial in the mid-south. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 22:8788.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. P. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13:611.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil- resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 49:567570.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2001. Broadleaf weed control in ultra narrow row bromoxynil- resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:497504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204211.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. R. C. 1993. Narrow row cotton: economics and history. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 17:133138.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. Software version 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (Software version).Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Paulsgrove, M. D. 2002. Clomazone, fomesafen, and bromoxynil systems for bromoxynil- resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:838844.Google Scholar