Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:22:21.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Selected Weeds and Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton and Soybean to Two Glyphosate Salts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
William A. Bailey ,
Gregory R. Armel ,
Cory M. Whaley ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Cory M. Whaley
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2000 and 2001 to investigate responses of glyphosate-resistant cotton, glyphosate-resistant soybean, and selected weed species to postemergence applications of isopropylamine (Ipa) and diammonium (Dia) salts of glyphosate at selected rates ranging from 0.42 to 3.36 kg ae/ha. No differences were detected between either glyphosate salts or application timings for cotton injury, cotton lint yield, micronaire, fiber length, fiber strength, or fiber uniformity. In a weed-free soybean study, no differences in soybean injury occurred between early-postemergence treatments of the two glyphosate salts. Injury from late-postemergence treatments did not exceed 12% with glyphosate-Ipa or 9% with glyphosate-Dia at 3.36 kg/ha. Soybean treated with glyphosate-Ipa yielded 3,050 kg/ha, whereas soybean treated with glyphosate-Dia yielded 2,880 kg/ha, when averaged over glyphosate rate and application timing. In a soybean study that included weed control as a variable, weed control at 14 d after treatment (DAT), and soybean yield was independent of glyphosate salt. Control of common ragweed, ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, and large crabgrass at 28 DAT was similar at 0.84 kg/ha of either glyphosate salt.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘PM1218 BG/RR’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 5401RR’Diammoniumglyphosate formulationglyphosate saltisopropylamineDAT, days after treatmentDia, diammoniumEPOST, early postemergenceIpa, isopropylamineLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceTms, trimethylsulfonium
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 560 - 564
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. Crop Protection Reference. 15th ed. New York: C & P Press. 2431 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready® Cotton. Monsanto Company: Web page: www.monsanto.com. Accessed: September 18, 2001.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Published Estimates for Cotton Acreage, Yield and Production, 2000–2001. Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service: Web page: www.nass.usda.gov/va. Accessed: December 26, 2002.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Glyphosate interactions with manganese. Weed Technol. 16: 792–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, K. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Comparative phytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0224, SC-0545, and HOE-00661. Weed Sci. 32: 841–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant and non-transgenic cotton. Weed Technol. 13: 411–420.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil Test Recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 834. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Pp. 23, 27.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. F., Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., Holshouser, D. L., Herbert, D. A., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Herbicide effects on visible injury, leaf area index, and yield in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16: 554–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffen, 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
Kapusta, G. R., Krausz, R. F., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Soybean tolerance and summer annual weed control with glufosinate and glyphosate in resistant soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 49: 120.Google Scholar
Kells, J. and Lee, C. 2002. Effect of Glyphosate Formulation and AMS on Herbicide Effectiveness in 2001. Field Crop CAT Alert; February 8, 2002: Web page: http://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/CAT01_fld/FC02-08-02.htm. Accessed: January 27, 2003.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Young, B. G. 2001. Response of glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) to trimethylsulfonium and isopropylamine salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15: 745–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., and Buehler, R. E. et al. 1996. Glyphosate-resistant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44: 1960–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Thomas, J. 2003. Glyphosate-induced reductions in pollen viability and seed set in glyphosate-resistant cotton and attempted remediation by giberellic acid (GA3). Weed Sci. 51: 19–27.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralston, J. L. and Witt, W. W. 1998. Comparison of postemergence broadleaf herbicides in glyphosate-tolerant and glyphosate-susceptible soybeans. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38: 7.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2001. Glyphosate in full-season no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean: role of preplant applications and residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 15: 714–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33: 531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar