Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:46:47.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Trifloxysulfuron and Pyrithiobac in Glyphosate-Resistant and Bromoxynil-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey W. Branson ,
Kenneth L. Smith  and
James L. Barrentine
Jeffrey W. Branson*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Stuttgart, AR 72160
Kenneth L. Smith
Affiliation:
Southeast Research and Extension Center, Monticello, AR 71655
James L. Barrentine
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2000 and 2001 at Rohwer, AR. Trifloxysulfuron (5.3 and 8 g ai/ha) and pyrithiobac (70 g ai/ha) were applied preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) broadcast at the two- to three-leaf (EP) and three- to four-leaf (MP) cotton growth stages. Both materials were also applied POST in combination with glyphosate at 560 g ae/ha or bromoxynil at 560 g ai/ha at both growth stages. Trifloxysulfuron applied EP or MP at 8 g/ha provided greater control of sicklepod and pitted morningglory 28 d after application (DAA) than trifloxysulfuron at 5.3 g/ha or pyrithiobac at 70 g/ha; however, control of prickly sida was greater with pyrithiobac than with trifloxysulfuron at either rate. Glyphosate alone controlled sicklepod, prickly sida, and pitted morningglory greater than 80%. The addition of trifloxysulfuron at 8 g/ha and pyrithiobac at 70 g/ ha increased control of all species over glyphosate alone 28 DAA. Bromoxynil at 560 g/ha controlled pitted morningglory and hemp sesbania at all application timings; however, sicklepod and Palmer amaranth control was less than 50% with bromoxynil applied alone. When bromoxynil was applied in combination with trifloxysulfuron at either rate, control of sicklepod and Palmer amaranth increased to 80% or greater at all application timings. Trifloxysulfuron has the potential to complement both the glyphosate-resistant and bromoxynil-resistant weed control programs by providing control of less susceptible weeds and by providing residual control to both programs.

Keywords

Bromoxynilglyphosatepyrithiobactrifloxysulfuronhemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Rybd. ex A.W. Hill # SEBEXPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. # CASOBcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. # GOSHIApplication timingsbromoxynil-resistant cottonglyphosateglyphosate-resistant cottonresidual herbicidestransgenic cottontrifloxysulfuron sodiumBXN, bromoxynil-resistantDAA, days after applicationEP, early postemergenceMP, mid-postemergencePOST, postemergence over-the-topPRE, preemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 404 - 410
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

Allen, R. L., Snipes, C. E., and Crowder, S. H. 1997. Fruiting response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 11:59–63.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003a. National Acreage Summary. United States Department of Agriculture: Web page: http//www.nass.usdsa.gov/ar/homepage.htm. Accessed: July 7, 2003.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003b. University of Arkansas Irrigation Scheduling Program: Web page: http://www.aragriculture.org/computer/schedule/default.asp. Accessed: March 17, 2003.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. 13:308–313.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Grey, T. L., and Brecke, B. J. 2002. Pyrithiobac and bromoxynil combinations with MSMA for improved weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 6:91–96. Web page: www.jcotsci.org. Accessed: November 10, 2003.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 2003. Report of the 2003 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:2218.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate- tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:174–185. Web page: www.jcotsci.org. Accessed: November 10, 2003.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E. and Chandler, J. M. 1989. Strategies and tactics for weed management in cotton production. in Frisbie, R. E., El-Zik, K. M., and Wilson, L. T., eds. Integrated Pest Management. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 327–360.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Guy, C. B., Jordan, D. L., and Smith, C. M. 1993. Current and future strategies for broadleaf weed control. in Oosterhuis, D. M., ed. Proceedings of Cotton Research Meeting. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Special Rep. 162:48–52.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton development and yield following fluometuron applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, C. B. 1998. BXN 47-A new look at the buctril system. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:851–852.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. 2000. CGA 362622 performance in cotton and sugarcane. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:1459–1460.Google Scholar
Isgett, T. D., Murdock, E. C., and Kendig, A. 1996. Weed control in Roundup Ready cotton. in Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton conference, Volume 1. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 787.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Cotton response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Hennigern, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1993. Effects of DPX-PE350 on cotton growth, yield, and fiber quality. Weed Technol. 7:930–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, M. R. 1999. Roundup rate and timing for weed control in Roundup Ready cotton. in Oosterhuis, D. M., ed. Proceedings of 1999 Cotton Research Meeting and Summaries of Cotton Research in Progress. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Special Rep. 193. Pp. 198–200.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. G. 1993. Transgenic cotton allows over-the-top weed control. Auburn, Al: Highlights of Agriculture Research. Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station Rep. 40. Pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002. Weed-free response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, J. C. 2001. The use of CGA 362 in cotton weed control programs. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:175.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting charateristics. Weed Sci. 42:210–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. W. 2000. Introduction to CGA 362622 a new postemergence herbicide. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:1459.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. in Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343–400.Google Scholar