Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:42:03.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tropical Spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Stanley Culpepper ,
J. T. Flanders ,
Alan C. York  and
Theodore M. Webster
A. Stanley Culpepper*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31794
J. T. Flanders
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31794
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tropical spiderwort has recently become the most troublesome weed in Georgia cotton. Most of Georgia's cotton is glyphosate resistant (GR), and glyphosate is only marginally effective on tropical spiderwort. An experiment was conducted at four locations to determine tropical spiderwort control in GR cotton by 27 herbicide systems. Treatments consisted of three early-postemergence over-the-top (POT) herbicide options and nine late–postemergence-directed (LPD) options arranged factorially. Glyphosate POT controlled tropical spiderwort only 53% 21 d after treatment (DAT). Glyphosate plus pyrithiobac or S-metolachlor controlled tropical spiderwort 60 and 80%, respectively. Pyrithiobac improved control of emerged spiderwort, whereas S-metolachlor provided residual control. Pooled over POT treatments, glyphosate LPD controlled tropical spiderwort 70% 21 DAT. Dimethipin mixed with glyphosate did not improve control. Carfentrazone, diuron, or flumioxazin mixed with glyphosate LPD improved control 9 to 15%. MSMA and MSMA plus flumioxazin were 8 and 19% more effective than glyphosate LPD. At time of cotton harvest, systems without residual herbicides at LPD controlled tropical spiderwort 42 to 45% compared with 64 to 76% with LPD treatments that included diuron or flumioxazin.

Keywords

CarfentrazonedimethipindiuronflumioxazinglyphosateMSMApyrithiobacS-metolachlortropical spiderwort, Commelina benghalensis L.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DP 458 B/RR’, ‘FM 989 B/RR’, ‘ST 4793 BR’Invasive weednoxious weedweed shiftDAP, days after plantingDAT, days after treatmentGR, glyphosate resistantLPD, late postemergence directedPOT, postemergence over-the-top
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 432 - 436
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

Budd, G. D., Thomas, P. E. L., and Allison, J. C. S. 1979. Vegetative regeneration, depth of germination and seed dormancy in Commelina benghalensis L. Rhod. J. Agric. Res. 17:151–153.Google Scholar
Burton, M. G., Webster, T. M., Prostko, E. P., Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., and Sermons, S. 2003. Rapid increase of tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis L.) in herbicide-resistant crops of southeastern USA agroecosystems. Abstracts of the Ecol. Soc. Am. 88:51–52.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. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and non-transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, R. B. 1993. The misconstrued and rare species of Commelina (Commelinacea) in the eastern United States. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 80:208–218.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, D.C.: American Chemical Society. Pp. 103–141.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci. 3:132–138.Google Scholar
Jost, P. J., Brown, S. M., Culpepper, S., Harris, G., Kemerait, B., Roberts, P., Shurley, D., and Willams, J. 2003. 2003 Georgia Cotton Production Guide. Publication No. CSS-03-01. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. 98 p.Google Scholar
Krings, A., Burton, M. G., and York, A. C. 2002. Commelina benghalensis (Commelinacea) new to North Carolina and an updated key to Carolina congeners. Sida. 20:419–422.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, P. and Maheshwari, J. K. 1955. Floral dimorphism in Commelina forskalaei Vahl. and C. benghalensis L. Phytomorphology. 5:413–422.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Culpepper, A. S., Webster, T. M., and Flanders, J. T. 2004. Tropical Spiderwort Identification and Control in Cotton and Peanut. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. In press.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service—Cotton Program. 2002. Cotton Varieties Planted 2002 Crop. Memphis, TN: USDA-AMS.Google Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS. 2000. Federal Noxious Weed List:. Web page: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/fnwsbycat-e.PDF. Accessed: May 3, 2004.Google Scholar
[USDA-ERS] United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2003. The Extent of Adoption of Bioengineered Crops:. Web page: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810d.pdf. Accessed: May 3, 2004.Google Scholar
Walker, S. R. and Evenson, J. P. 1985. Biology of Commelina benghalensis L. in south-eastern Queensland. Growth, development, and seed production. Weed Res. 25:239–244.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–248.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.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. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2002. Dual/glyphosate combinations in Roundup Ready cotton. in McRae, J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference; 2002 January 8–13; Atlanta, GA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar