Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T02:41:41.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Systems for Weed Control in Glyphosate-Tolerant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George H. Scott ,
Shawn D. Askew  and
John W. Wilcut
George H. Scott
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, P.O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at three locations in North Carolina to evaluate clomazone preemergence (PRE) in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. Cotton was injured by fluometuron PRE at one location. Clomazone PRE controlled common ragweed, goosegrass, large crabgrass, and prickly sida better than trifluralin preplant incorporated (PPI). Trifluralin controlled Palmer amaranth better than clomazone. The addition of a late post-directed (LAYBY) treatment of cyanazine plus MSMA improved the control of goosegrass. Glyphosate at 0.8 kg ai/ha, used postemergence as needed, controlled tall morningglory and entireleaf morningglory at least 84%. Common ragweed was controlled with all herbicides, except trifluralin PPI. Prickly sida was controlled 94% or greater in glyphosate-containing systems. Cotton yields and net returns were similar for all glyphosate systems, regardless of soil-applied herbicides and LAYBY treatment options.

Keywords

ClomazonecyanazinefluometuronglyphosateMSMAtrifluralincommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. #3 AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S.Wats # AMAPAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 1330RR’, ‘DP5415RR’Economic analysis, herbicide-resistant cropsANS, as needed sprayDAP, days after plantingEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byLAYBY, late post directedPOST, postemergencePOT, postemergence over-the-topPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 191 - 198
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. 1998. Summary of Annual Ownership Costs, Performance Rates, and Hourly Operation Costs by Machines, 1998 Field Crop Budgets. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 3 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Crop Protection Reference. 15th ed. New York: C & P. Press. New York,431 p.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., Bailey, W. A., and Scott, G. H. 1999. Weed management in conventional and no-tillage cotton using BXN, Roundup Ready, and Staple OT systems. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2:743.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. and Cole, T. 1997. Cotton: Estimated Revenue, Operating Expenses, Annual Ownership Costs, and Net Revenue per Acre. Raleigh, NC: NCSU Department Agriculture and Resource Economics Budget 76-1. 3 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Conference pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18: 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 837–840.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4: 174–185.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: 411–420.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 pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Toxicology and environmental properties of glyphosate. In Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. American Chemical Society Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 103–141.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
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3: 19–26.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Fortner, L. D. 1994. Utility of clomazone for annual grass and broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 8: 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., McClelland, M. R., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Clomazone as a component in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) herbicide programs. Weed Technol. 7: 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeton, A., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. S., and Toler, J. E. 1996. Chemical control systems for coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 10: 550–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S. G., Brawley, P., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 1997. What happens when Roundup Ready™ cotton is sprayed with Roundup Ultra® after the four leaf stage? Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21:779.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1985. Limited tillage in cotton production. In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 61–75.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45: 426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynilresistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47: 596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49: 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Colvin, D. L., Patterson, M. G., and Crawford, S. H. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to cultivation timing and frequency. Weed Technol. 6: 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and chemical weed control systems. Weed Sci. 40: 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32: 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westberg, D. E., Oliver, L. R., and Frans, R. E. 1989. Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 678–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical weed control. In Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 627–661.Google 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. New York: CRC and Lewis Publishers. pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11: 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G. R., and Whitwell, T. 1988. Efficacy and economics of pendimethalin herbicide combinations for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Appl. Agric. Res. 3: 203–208.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Snipes, C. E., Nichols, R. L., Hayes, R. M., Chandler, M., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 1998. A regional evaluation of new technologies for weed management in conventional-tillage cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 52–53.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
York, A. C. and Jordan, D. L. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to clomazone and insecticide combinations. Weed Technol. 6: 796–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar