Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:50:02.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alan C. York ,
Alexander M. Stewart ,
P. Roy Vidrine  and
A. Stanley Culpepper
Alan C. York*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Alexander M. Stewart
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, LSU Agricultural Center, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
P. Roy Vidrine
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, LSU Agricultural Center, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton boll weevil has been eradicated from much of the U.S. Cotton Belt. After eradication, a containment program is necessary to detect and destroy reintroduced boll weevils. Crops other than cotton are not monitored for boll weevil, hence fruit on volunteer glyphosate-resistant (GR) cotton in GR soybean could provide oviposition sites for boll weevils and allow the insects to build up undetected. An experiment was conducted at five locations to evaluate control of GR cotton and reduction in cotton fruit production by herbicides commonly used on GR soybean. Cotton control by preemergence (PRE) or postemergence (POST) herbicides alone was inconsistent across locations. Flumetsulam at 45 g ai/ha, imazaquin at 137 g ai/ha, and metribuzin at 360 g ai/ha plus chlorimuron at 60 g ai/ha applied PRE controlled cotton 55 to 100% and reduced cotton fruit production 84 to 100%. Sulfentrazone at 167 g ai/ha plus chlorimuron at 34 g/ha PRE controlled cotton 50 to 91% and reduced fruit 48 to 98%. Metribuzin PRE at 420 g/ha controlled cotton 23 to 97% and reduced fruit 32 to 100%. Flumiclorac at 30 g ai/ha, 2,4-DB dimethylamine salt at 35 g ae/ha, chlorimuron at 12 g ai/ha, and the sodium salt of fomesafen at 420 g ai/ha mixed with glyphosate and applied POST controlled cotton 48 to 100% and reduced fruit production 67 to 100%. Cloransulam at 12 or 18 g ai/ha controlled cotton 3 to 66% and reduced fruit production 5 to 85%. Cotton control and fruit reduction were greatest and most consistent with sequential applications of metribuzin plus chlorimuron PRE followed by chlorimuron, flumiclorac, fomesafen, or 2,4-DB POST. These treatments controlled cotton at least 95% at all locations. Cotton fruit was totally eliminated at three locations and reduced at least 97% at a fourth location.

Keywords

Chlorimuroncloransulam2,4-DBflumetsulamflumicloracfomesafenglyphosatemetribuzinsulfentrazonecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DP 422 B/RR’, ‘PM 1218 B/RR’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘A5353RR’, ‘A5802RR’, ‘A5901RR’Boll weevil eradicationchlorimuroncloransulamflumetsulamflumicloracfomesafenmetribuzinoviposition sitessulfentrazone2,4-DBDAP, days after plantingGR, glyphosate-resistantPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 532 - 539
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

Ahouissoussi, N. B. C., Wetzstein, M. E., and Duffy, P. A. 1993. Economic returns to the boll weevil eradication program. J. Agric. Appl. Econ 25:46–55.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003a. Canopy® SP. in Crop Protection Reference. 18th ed. New York: C & P. Pp. 733–738.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003b. Dupont™ Canopy XL® . in Crop Protection Reference. 18th ed. New York: C & P. Pp. 738–744.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003c. Python™ WDG. in Crop Protection Reference. 18th ed. New York: C & P. Pp. 547–551.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003d. Scepter® 70 DG. in Crop Protection Reference. 18th ed. New York: C & P. Pp. 164–170.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003e. Sencor® DF. in Crop Protection Reference. 18th ed. New York: C & P. Pp. 733–738.Google Scholar
Barker, B., Parker, C. H., King, A. G., and Anderson, W. 2001. What's required to finish the job and protect our investment?. in Dickerson, W. A., Brashear, A. L., Brumley, J. T., Carter, F. L., Grefenstette, W. J., and Harris, F. A., eds. Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States through 1999. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Number Six. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 509–522.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. A., Sappie, G., and Hammig, M. 1989. Economic returns to boll weevil eradication. USDA ERS Agricultural Economics Rep 621:1–31.Google Scholar
Carter, F. L., Nelson, T. C., Jordan, A. G., and Smith, J. R. 2001. U.S. cotton declares war on the boll weevil. in Dickerson, W. A., Brashear, A. L., Brumley, J. T., Carter, F. L., Grefenstette, W. J., and Harris, F. A., eds. Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States through 1999. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Number Six. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 25–54.Google Scholar
Coad, B. R., Tucker, E. S., Williams, W. B., Bondy, F. F., and Gaines, R. C. 1922. Dispersion of the boll weevil in 1921. USDA Department Circ 210:1–3.Google Scholar
Cross, W. H. 1973. Biology, control, and eradication of the boll weevil. Ann. Rev. Entomol 18:17–46.Google Scholar
Dickerson, W. A., Cross, G. B., and Grant, M. 2001. North Carolina boll weevil eradication and post-eradication programs. in Dickerson, W. A., Brashear, A. L., Brumley, J. T., Carter, F. L., Grefenstette, W. J., and Harris, F. A., eds. Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States through 1999. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Number Six. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 375–404.Google Scholar
Duffy, P. A. and Hishamunda, N. 2001. Economic impacts of boll weevil eradication. in Dickerson, W. A., Brashear, A. L., Brumley, J. T., Carter, F. L., Grefenstette, W. J., and Harris, F. A., eds. Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States through 1999. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Number Six. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 157–174.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. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Gray, C. J., Shaw, D. R., and Tagert, M. L. 2002. Control of volunteer roundup ready crops in soybean and cotton systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:40.Google Scholar
Haney, P. B. 2001. The cotton boll weevil in the United States: impact on cotton production and the people of the cotton belt. in Dickerson, W. A., Brashear, A. L., Brumley, J. T., Carter, F. L., Grefenstette, W. J., and Harris, F. A., eds. Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States through 1999. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Number Six. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
Haney, P. B., Herzog, G., and Roberts, P. M. 2001. Boll weevil eradication in Georgia. in Dickerson, W. A., Brashear, A. L., Brumley, J. T., Carter, F. L., Grefenstette, W. J., and Harris, F. A., eds. Boll Weevil Eradication in the United States through 1999. The Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Number Six. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 259–290.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Vidrine, P. R., Lee, D. R., and Perritt, A. L. 2001. Weed control and cotton tolerance with Firstrate and Frontrow. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:8.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Jones, M. A., and Graham, R. F. 2002. Control of volunteer glyphosate resistant (Roundup)—tolerant cotton and soybean in roundup ready cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 55:14.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDACS). 2003. North Carolina Agriculture Overview: Field Crops:. Web page: http://www.ncagr.com/stats/general/crop%5Ffld.htm. Accessed: April 16, 2004.Google Scholar
Pencoe, N. L. and Phillips, J. R. 1987. The cotton boll weevil: legend, myth, and reality. J. Entomol. Sci. Suppl 1:30–51.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). 2003. The Extent of Adoption of Bioengineered Crops:. Web page: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810d.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2004.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 2004. Weed Response to Preplant Incorporated and Preemergence Herbicides—Soybeans. 2004 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Web page: http://ipm.ncsu.edu/agchem/agchem.html. Accessed: April 16, 2004.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2001. Weed control and cotton response with Firstrate and Frontrow post-directed. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:7.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Keene, M. M., and Walls, F. R. Jr. 1991. Soybean (Glycine max) response to postemergence herbicide mixtures containing 2,4-DB. Weed Technol. 5:43–47.Google Scholar