Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-pd9xq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:08:23.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Management Systems in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn C. Troxler
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Glade Road Research Facility, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0330
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
W. David Smith
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton in 1995 and 1997. Herbicide systems evaluated included various combinations of soil-applied (trifluralin and fluometuron) and postemergence (POST) (glyphosate or pyrithiobac) herbicides with or without late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatments of cyanazine plus MSMA. Glyphosate-resistant cotton injury was less than 5% with all herbicide treatments. Glyphosate POST systems were as efficacious in weed control as other herbicide systems. Depending on location, glyphosate and pyrithiobac POST systems usually required cyanazine plus MSMA LAYBY for season-long control of common lambsquarters, goosegrass, large crabgrass, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and Texas panicum. Glyphosate POST applied as needed provided weed control equivalent to soil-applied plus POST herbicides, although lint yield was slightly reduced depending on location. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied herbicides required one to two treatments of glyphosate POST and post-directed for season-long weed control and high cotton lint yields, whereas the same herbicide systems without soil-applied herbicides required two to three glyphosate treatments. In all herbicide systems, a residual soil-applied or LAYBY herbicide treatment increased yield compared with glyphosate POST only systems. Location influenced weed control and cotton yield. Generally, as herbicide inputs increased, yield increased.

Type
Research Article
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. 1999. Roundup Ultra supplemental label 21137Y6-8. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Acereage data. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Pp. 2425.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 nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512520.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. 13:308313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerson, S. R., Rodriguez, D. J., Tran, M., Feng, Y. M., Biest, N. A., and Dill, G. M. 2002. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass: identification of a mutation in the target 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. Plant Physiol. 129:12651275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., and Hayes, R. M. 2003. Weed management, fiber quality, and net returns in no-tillage transgenic and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:117126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, C. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp and Cassia spp. to preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 27:531535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:174185.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Gary, H. C., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10:712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 37 p.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. ACS Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Pp. 616.Google Scholar
Heering, D. C., Voth, R. D., Ferreira, K., and Mills, J. A. 1998. Commercial experience with Roundup Ready cotton in 1997. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 22:851.Google Scholar
Hoss, N. E., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. 2003. Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 51:110117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, K. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci. 3:132138.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. J. Jr. 1998. Stale seedbed control in cucumber. Weed Sci. 46:698702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Transgenic cotton tolerance to topical glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:1926.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Cotton response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:216219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993c. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:196201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and interaction of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:339344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.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. 16:512519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45:426429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papamichail, D., Eleftherohorinos, I., Froud-Williams, R., and Gravanis, F. 2002. Critical period of weed competition in cotton in Greece. Phytoparasitica 30:105111.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Thomas, J. F. 2003. Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton and attempted remediation by gibberellic acid (GA3). Weed Sci. 50:1927.CrossRefGoogle 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. 49:460467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed control with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn. Weed Sci. 50:642647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, J. W., and Clewis, S. B. 2003. Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 51:10021009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Glyphosate systems for weed control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. Weed Technol. 16:191198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pestic. Manag. Sci. 56:320326.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992a. Influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci. 42:210215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992b. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and chemical weed control systems. Weed Sci. 42:249254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 42:5.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 2001:703705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 213230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Vencill, W. K., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management programs for oil seed crops. in Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Programs. New York: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 1998. Weed management in cotton. in Edmisten, K. L., ed. 1998 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 74118.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 1994. Peanut control in rotational crops. Peanut Sci. 21:4043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar