Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:14:56.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management with Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Based Systems in PHY 485 WRF Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jared R. Whitaker ,
Alan C. York ,
David L. Jordan  and
A. Stanley Culpepper
Jared R. Whitaker*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Statesboro, GA 30460
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth has become a serious pest in parts of the Cotton Belt. Some GR cotton cultivars also contain the WideStrike™ insect resistance trait, which confers tolerance to glufosinate. Use of glufosinate-based management systems in such cultivars could be an option for managing GR Palmer amaranth. The objective of this study was to evaluate crop tolerance and weed control with glyphosate-based and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. The North Carolina field experiment compared glyphosate and glufosinate alone and in mixtures applied twice before four- to six-leaf cotton. Additional treatments included glyphosate and glufosinate mixed with S-metolachlor or pyrithiobac applied to one- to two-leaf cotton followed by glyphosate or glufosinate alone on four- to six-leaf cotton. All treatments received a residual lay-by application. Excellent weed control was observed from all treatments on most weed species. Glyphosate was more effective than glufosinate on glyphosate-susceptible (GS) Palmer amaranth and annual grasses, while glufosinate was more effective on GR Palmer amaranth. Annual grass and GS Palmer amaranth control by glyphosate plus glufosinate was often less than control by glyphosate alone but similar to or greater than control by glufosinate alone, while mixtures were more effective than either herbicide alone on GR Palmer amaranth. Glufosinate caused minor and transient injury to the crop, but no differences in cotton yield or fiber quality were noted. This research demonstrates glufosinate can be applied early in the season to PHY 485 WRF cotton without concern for significant adverse effects on the crop. Although glufosinate is often less effective than glyphosate on GS Palmer amaranth, GR Palmer amaranth can be controlled with well-timed applications of glufosinate. Use of glufosinate in cultivars with the WideStrike trait could fill a significant void in current weed management programs for GR Palmer amaranth in cotton.

El Amaranthus palmeri resistente al glifosato (GR) se ha convertido en un serio problema en algunas partes de la Faja Algodonera. Algunos de los cultivares de algodón GR también contienen la característica de resistencia a insectos WideStrike™, la cual confiere tolerancia al glufosinato. El uso de sistemas de manejo con base en glufosinato en este tipo de cultivares podría ser una opción para el manejo de Amaranthus palmeri GR. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la tolerancia del cultivo y el control de malezas con sistemas a base de glifosato y a base de glufosinato en algodón PHY 485 WRF. El experimento de campo en Carolina del Norte comparó glifosato y glufosinato por sí solos y en mezclas aplicadas al algodón dos veces antes de la etapa de 4- a 6-hojas. Tratamientos adicionales incluyeron glifosato y glufosinato mezclados con S-metolachlor o pyrithiobac aplicados en la etapa de 1- a 2-hojas, seguidos por glifosato o glufosinato solo, en la etapa de 4- a 6-hojas. Todos los tratamientos recibieron una aplicación residual final. Se observó un excelente control de malezas en la mayoría de las especies en todos los tratamientos. El glifosato fue más efectivo que el glufosinato en Amaranthus palmeri susceptible al glifosato (GS) y zacates anuales, mientras que el glufosinato fue más efectivo en Amaranthus palmeri GR. El control de zacates anuales y Amaranthus palmeri GS con glifosato más glufosinato fue frecuentemente menor que con glifosato aplicado solo, pero fue similar o mayor que el control con glufosinato solo. Sin embargo, las mezclas fueron más efectivas que cualquier herbicida aplicado solo para el control de Amaranthus palmeri GR. El glufosinato causó un daño mínimo y pasajero al cultivo, pero no se notaron diferencias en el rendimiento o en la calidad de la fibra. Esta investigación demuestra que el glufosinato puede ser aplicado temprano durante la temporada de crecimiento del algodón PHY 485 WRF, sin tener que preocuparse por los efectos adversos significativos en el cultivo. Aunque el glufosinato es frecuentemente menos efectivo que el glifosato en Amaranthus palmeri GS, el Amaranthus palmeri GR puede ser controlado con aplicaciones oportunas de glufosinato. El uso de glufosinato en cultivares con la característica WideStrike podría llenar un vacío en los actuales programas de manejo de malezas para Amaranthus palmeri GR en el cultivo del algodón.

Keywords

DiuronglufosinateglyphosateMSMApyrithiobacS-metolachlorPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Carpetweedcommon lambsquarterscommon ragweedcrop tolerancecrowfootgrassentireleaf morninggloryfall panicumglyphosate-resistant weedsgoosegrassherbicide-resistant cottonlarge crabgrassPalmer amaranthpitted morningglorypyrithiobacredroot pigweedS-metolachlorsicklepodtall morninggloryWidestrike™ cotton
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 183 - 191
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

Agbios 2006a. GM Database Product Description: ACS-GH001-3 (LLCotton25). http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?evidcode=LLCotton25&hstIDXCode=&gType=&AbbrCode=&atCode=&stCode=&coIDCode=&action=gm_crop_database&mode=Submit. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Agbios 2006b. GM Database Product Description: DAS-24236-5, DAS21023-5, MON-88913-8 (DAS-21023-5 × DAS-24236-5 × MON88913). http://cera-gmc.org/index.php?action=gm_crop_database&mode=ShowProd&data=MON88913&frmat=LONG. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Ahrens, W. H., Cox, D. J., and Budhwar, G. 1990. Use of arcsine and square root transformations for subjectively determined percentage data. Weed Sci 38:452–458.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009a. Ignite 280 SL herbicide label. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld7AQ022.pdf. Accessed: November 1, 2009. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience.Google Scholar
Anonymous, . 2009b. Roundup PowerMAX herbicide label. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld5UJ064.pdf. Accessed: November 1, 2009. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:267–273.Google Scholar
Blair-Kerth, L. K., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Gannaway, J. R., Oliver, J. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 2001. Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate. Weed Sci 49:375–380.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A., Oliver, L. R., and Stephenson, D. O. 2006. Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. S., Hubmeier, C., Tran, M., Martens, A., Cerny, R. E., Sammons, R. D., and CaJacob, C. 2006. Expression of CP4 EPSPS in microspores and tapetum cell of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) is critical for male reproductive development in response to late-stage glyphosate applications. Plant Biotech. J. 4:477–487.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2006. Weed management with s-metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Weed Technol 20:232–241.Google 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 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Whitaker, J. R., MacRae, A. W., and York, A. C. 2008. Distribution of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Georgia and North Carolina during 2005 and 2006. J. Cotton Sci 12:306–310.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci 2:174–185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999a. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 13:324–333.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999b. 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
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., MacRae, A. W., Kichler, J., Whitaker, J., and Davis, A. L. 2007. Managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in conventional and strip-till Roundup Ready cotton. Pages. 1230–1231. in. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX. 4–8 Jan. 2000. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Roberts, P., and Whitaker, J. R. 2009. Weed control and crop response to glufosinate applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF’ cotton. Weed Technol 23:356–362.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 10:156–216.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Perkins, W. R., Henniger, C. G., and Gilbert, L. V. 2009. Agronomic performance and herbicide efficacy in stacked glufosinate/glyphosate tolerant cotton. WSSA abstract no. 100. http://wssa.net/Meetings/WSSAAbstracts/abstractsearch.php. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Everman, W. J., Burke, I. C., Allen, J. R., Collins, J., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Weed control and yield with glufosinate-resistant cotton weed management systems. Weed Technol 21:695–701.Google Scholar
Everman, W. J., Clewis, S. B., York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2009a. Weed control and yield with flumioxazin, fomesafen, and S-metolachlor systems for glufosinate-resistant cotton residual weed management. Weed Technol 23:391–397.Google Scholar
Everman, W. J., Glaspie, C. F., and Penner, D. 2009b. Physiological investigation into glyphosate and glufosinate antagonism. WSSA abstract no. 289. http://wssa.net/Meetings/WSSAAbstracts/abstractsearch.php. Accessed: November 1, 2009.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
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. In Camper, N. D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. P., York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Monks, D. W. 2006. Management of annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. in glufosinate-resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci 10:328–338. http://www.cotton.org/journal/2006-10/4/upload/jcs10-328.pdf. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. 2008. Economic impacts of glyphosate resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci 64:346–352.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2009. International Survey of Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Henniger, G., Baker, S., Reinhardt, M., Humphries, R., Trolinder-Wright, L., and Holloway, J. 2009. Performance of Glytol and Glytol + Liberty Link cotton technologies in the US. WSSA abstract no. 512. http://wssa.net/Meetings/WSSAAbstracts/abstractsearch.php. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A., Chandler, J. M., Morrison, J. E. Jr., Senseman, S. A., and Tingle, C. H. 2001. Glufosinate combinations and row spacing for weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:141–147.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Burke, I. C., Miller, D. K., Kendig, J. A., Reddy, K. N., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. MSMA antagonizes glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy on broadleaf and grass weeds. Weed Technol 21:159–165.Google Scholar
MacRae, A. W., Culpepper, A. S., Webster, T. M., Sosnoskie, L. M., and Kichler, J. M. 2008. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth competition with Roundup Ready cotton. Pages. 1696. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. 8–11 Jan. 2008. Memphis, TN Natl. Cotton Counc. Am.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Gwathmey, C. O., and Allen, F. L. 2008. Tennessee Cotton Variety Test Results 2008. http://varietytrials.tennessee.edu. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984. Photometric determination of humic matter in soils, a proposed method. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 15:1417–1422.Google Scholar
Meijer, A. D., Edmisten, K. L., and York, A. C. 2009. Cotton production with conservation tillage. Pages. 167–175. in 2009 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Baumann, 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
[NCSU] North Carolina State University 2008. Official Variety Trials. http://www.ncovt.com. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Nichols, R. L., Bond, J., Culpepper, A. S., Dodds, D., Nandula, V., Main, C. L., Marshall, M. W., Mueller, T. C., Norsworthy, J. K., Prive, A., Patterson, M., Scott, R. C., Smith, K. L., Steckel, L. E., Stephenson, D., Wright, D., and York, A. C. 2009. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) spreads in the southern United States (U.S.). Resistant Pest Management Newsletter 18:8–10. http://whalonlab.msu.edu/Newsletter/pdf/18_2.pdf. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Griffith, G. M., Scott, R. C., Smith, K. L., and Oliver, L. R. 2008. Conformation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Rowland, M. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 47:305–309.Google Scholar
Sasser, P. E. 1981. The basics of high volume instruments for fiber testing. Pages. 191–193. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, New Orleans, LA. 4–8 Jan. 1981. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Scott, R. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Glyphosate systems for weed control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 16:191–198.Google Scholar
Scroggs, D. M., Vidrine, P. R., and Williams, B. J. 2008. Glyphosate/glufosinate tank-mix combinations in corn. Pages. 1. in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Jacksonville, FL. 28–30 Jan. 2008. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T., Baker, R. V., and Steele, G. L. 2000. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton. Weed Technol 14:122–126.Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, L., Kichler, J., Wallace, R., and Culpepper, S. 2009. Multiple resistance to glyphosate and ALS-inhibitors in Palmer amaranth in cotton. Pages. 135. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, TX. 5–8 Jan. 2009. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
[UGA] University of Georgia 2008. University of Georgia 2008 Official Variety Trial Data—Cotton. http://www.commodities.caes.uga.edu/fieldcrops/cotton/varieties/var2008.htm. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Marketing Service 2009. Cotton Varieties Planted 2009 Crop. http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/cnavar.pdf. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2009. Weed Survey—Southern States: Broadleaf Crops Subsection. Pages. 509–524. in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Orlando, FL. 9–13 Feb. 2009. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Whitaker, J. R. 2009. Distribution, biology, and management of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: Ph.D. diss. North Carolina State University. http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/3130/1/etd.pdf. Accessed: November 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Whitaker, J. R., York, A. C., and Culpepper, A. S. 2008. Management systems for glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Pages. 1693–1694. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. 8–11 Jan. 2008. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. G. Jr., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2007. Effect of row spacing on weed management in glufosinate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 21:489–495.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, S. 2009. Weed Management in Cotton. Pages. 68–125. in 2009 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301–307.Google Scholar