Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:43:38.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management and Crop Response with Glyphosate, S-Metolachlor, Trifloxysulfuron, Prometryn, and Msma in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis ,
D.K. Miller ,
C.H. Koger ,
T.A. Baughman ,
A.J. Price ,
D. Porterfield  and
J.W. Wilcut
Scott B. Clewis*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
D.K. Miller
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University AgCenter., P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
C.H. Koger
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA–ARS), Crop Genetics and Production Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38776
T.A. Baughman
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Research & Extension Center, Vernon, TX 76385
A.J. Price
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 S. Donahue Dr. Auburn, AL 36832
D. Porterfield
Affiliation:
Nufarm Americas, Inc., P.O. Box 13439, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
J.W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus 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 in five states at six locations from 2002 through 2003 to evaluate weed control and cotton response to early POST (EPOST), POST/POST-directed spray (PDS), and late POST-directed (LAYBY) systems using glyphosate-trimethylsulfonium salt (TM), s-metolachlor, trifloxysulfuron, prometryn, and MSMA. Early POST applications were made from mid May through mid June; POST/PDS applications were made from early June through mid July; and LAYBY applications were made from early July through mid August. Early season cotton injury and discoloration was minimal (< 1%) with all treatments; mid- and late-season injury was minimal (< 2%) except for trifloxysulfuron POST (11 and 9%, respectively). Annual grasses evaluated included barnyardgrass, broadleaf signalgrass, goosegrass, and large crabgrass. Broadleaf weeds evaluated included entireleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, sicklepod, and smooth pigweed. For the EPOST, POST/PDS, and LAYBY applications, weeds were at cotyledon to 10 leaf, 1 to 25 leaf, and 2 to 25 leaf stage, respectively. Annual broadleaf and grass control was increased with the addition of s-metolachlor to glyphosate-TM EPOST systems (85 to 98% control) compared with glyphosate-TM EPOST alone (65 to 91% control), except for sicklepod control where equivalent control was observed. Annual grass control was greater with glyphosate-TM plus trifloxysulfuron PDS than with trifloxysulfuron POST or PDS, or trifloxysulfuron plus MSMA PDS (90 to 94% vs. 75 to 83% control). With few exceptions, broadleaf weed control was equivalent for trifloxysulfuron applied POST alone or PDS alone or in combination with glyphosate-TM PDS or MSMA PDS herbicide treatments (81 to 99% control). The addition of a LAYBY herbicide treatment increased broadleaf weed control by 11 to 36 percentage points compared with systems without a LAYBY. Cotton lint yield increased 420 kg/ha with the addition of s-metolachlor to glyphosate-TM EPOST treatments compared with systems without s-metolachlor EPOST. Cotton lint yield was increased 330 to 910 kg/ha with the addition of a POST herbicide treatment compared with systems without a POST/PDS treatment. The addition of a LAYBY herbicide treatment increased cotton lint yield by 440 kg/ha compared with systems without a LAYBY.

Keywords

Glyphosate-TMMSMAprometryns-metolachlortrifloxysulfuronbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash. BRAPPentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray. IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAsicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia L. CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DP 458 RR/BG’, ‘DP 555 RR/BG’, ‘FM 989 RR/BG’, ‘PM 2344 RR/BG’, ‘ST 4793 RR’Trimethylsulfonium saltweed management
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 160 - 167
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, , 2007. Envoke product label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection. 7.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and non-tilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.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
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar applied CGA 362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.Google Scholar
Baerson, S. R., Rodriguez, D. J., and Tran, M. 2002. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. Plant Physiol. 129:1265–1275.Google Scholar
Branson, J. W., Smith, K. L., Barrentine, J. L., and Namenek, R. C. 2002. Cotton phytotoxicity with trifloxysulfuron as influenced by soil moisture, temperature, and tankmixes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:29.Google Scholar
Brewer, C. E., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, R. C. 2006. Update: Arkansas glyphosate-resistant common ragweed. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:188.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–276.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:749–754.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Everman, W. J., Jordan, D. L., et al. 2007. Grower assessments of long-term viability of Roundup Ready technology as a foundation for cotton production. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:88.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2006. Weed management with s-metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Weed Technol. 20:232–241.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Brownie, C. 2003. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. H. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.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.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2005. Managing weeds in cotton in the eastern United States. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 58:87.Google 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.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. 2001. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:544–551.Google 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. Pages 37–38. in Camper, N. D., editor. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Toxicity and environmental properties of glyphosate. Pages 103–137. in. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Washington, DC American Chemical Society Monograph 189.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York J. Wiley. 72–73.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2007. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: January 30, 2007.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Retzinger, E. J. Jr. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 17:605–619.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulation in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza Canadensis L. Cronq.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. H., Hager, A. G., and Tranel, P. J. 2004. Evaluation of glyphosate responses in tall waterhemp (A. tuberculatus) using a quantitative genetics approach. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 44:231.Google Scholar
Perez-Jones, A., Park, K. W., Colquhoun, J., Mallory-Smith, C., and Shaner, D. 2005. Identification of glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in Oregon. Weed Sci. 53:775–779.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002b. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002a. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, J. W., and Clewis, S. B. 2003. Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 51:1002–1009.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Combinations of CGA 362622 and bromoxynil for broadleaf weed control in bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:496–502.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004a. Influence of adjuvants on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to postemergence applications of CGA 362622. Weed Technol. 18:9–15.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004b. Mixtures of glyphosate with CGA 362622 for weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:16–22.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2007. Preemergence herbicides followed by trifloxysulfuron postemergence in cotton. Weed Technol. 21:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 8.00. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 1028.Google 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.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13:807–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Britton, T. T., Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) response and weed management with trifloxysulfuron, glyphosate, prometryn, and MSMA. Weed Technol. 20:6–13.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140–149.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. Pages 627–661. in Ruberson, J. R., editor. Handbook of Pest Management. New York Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management programs for oil seed crops. Pages 343–400. in Smith, A. E., editor. Handbook of Weed Management Programs. New York Marcel-Dekker.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A. and Owen, M. D. K. 2002. Potential for selection of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus tuberculatus . North Central Weed Sci. Soc. Abstr. 57:159.Google Scholar