Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017


Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Jerry W. Wells
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field studies conducted at three locations in North Carolina in 1998 and 1999 evaluated crop tolerance, weed control, and yield with CGA-362622 alone and in combination with various weed management systems in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton systems. The herbicide systems used bromoxynil, CGA-362622, glyphosate, and pyrithiobac applied alone early postemergence (EPOST) or mixtures of CGA-362622 plus bromoxynil, glyphosate, or pyrithiobac applied EPOST. Trifluralin preplant incorporated followed by (fb) fluometuron preemergence (PRE) alone or fb a late POST–directed (LAYBY) treatment of prometryn plus MSMA controlled all the weed species present less than 90%. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied and LAYBY herbicides plus glyphosate EPOST or mixtures of CGA-362622 EPOST plus bromoxynil, glyphosate, or pyrithiobac controlled broadleaf signalgrass, entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, prickly sida, sicklepod, and smooth pigweed at least 90%. Only cotton treated with these herbicide systems yielded equivalent to the weed-free check for each cultivar. Bromoxynil systems did not control Palmer amaranth and sicklepod, pyrithiobac systems did not control sicklepod, and CGA-362622 systems did not control prickly sida.


Type
Weed Management
Information
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.

References

Anonymous. 1999. Roundup Ultra supplemental label 21137X-20. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and non-transgenic cotton in tilled and non-tilled environments. Weed Sci 50:512520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:308313.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), peanut (Arachis hypogaea), and selected weeds. Weed Sci 50:293298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloodworth, K. M., Reynolds, D. B., Holloway, J. C., and Cobill, R. M. 2000. Cotton weed control in Mississippi with CGA-362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:28.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 1999. Variety selection. Pages 2442 in Edmisten, K. L. ed. 1999 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperation Extension Service.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. Pages 4772 in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R. eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA 362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol 16:749754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., and Culpepper, A. S. 2001. Interactions of CGA 362622 and graminicides on annual grasses in cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 41:59.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H., Teem, D. H., Buchanan, G. A., and Hoveland, C. S. 1979. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and Cassia spp. to preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 27:531535.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 11:335345.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 13:411420.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:299322.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. 2000. Planting decisions. Pages 2034 in Edmisten, K. L. ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperation Extension Service.Google Scholar
Ferreira, K. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Effect of DPX-PE350 on the efficacy of graminicides. Weed Sci 42:222226.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. Pages 3738 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A., York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Annual grass control with glyphosate mixtures with imazethapyr, bentazon, fomesafen, and 2,4-DB. Weed Technol 12:134136.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol 3:501504.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Environment affects cotton and velvetleaf response to pyrithiobac. Weed Sci 44:241247.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr., Wells, J. W., and Hudetz, M. et al. 2000. CGA-362622 application timing, rates, and weed spectrum in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:240.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA-362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:163166.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci 3:132138.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical application of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci 3:1926.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1997a. Monosodium methanerarsonate influence on broadleaf weed control with selected postemergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci 1:7275.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol 7:196201.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol 7:216219.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997b. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol 11:354362.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) growth and weed control. Weed Technol 13:611.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci 47:596601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci 49:567570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Oliver, T., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Allen, N. 2002a. Use of digital image analysis, viability stains, and germination assays to estimate conventional and glyphosate-resistant cotton pollen viability. Crop Sci 42:21932200.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 gibberellic acid (GA3). Weed Sci 51:1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci 49:460467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton due to lower CP4-EPSPS levels in male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci 50:438447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002c. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and conventional cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J. Agric. Food Chem 50:506512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 50:438447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol 16:180183.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 49:549557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Glyphosate systems for weed control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 16:191198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Allen, R. L. 1996. Interaction of graminicides applied in combination with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 10:889892.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992a. Influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci 42:210215.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992b. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and chemical weed control systems. Weed Sci 40:219254.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci 51:1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Influence of pyrithiobac sodium on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Sci 46:111115.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Hinton, J. D. 1997. Staple and MSMA systems for weed control in cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 2:771.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Vencill, W. K., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol 11:221226.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Patterson, M. G., Wehjte, G. R., and Whitwell, T. 1988. Efficacy and economics of pendimethalin herbicide combinations for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Appl. Agric. Res 3:203208.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. Pages 343400 in Smith, A. E. ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker.Google Scholar
Wood, M. L., Murray, D. S., Westerman, R. B., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1999. Full-season interference of Ipomoea hederacea with Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci 47:693696.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2001. Weed management in cotton. Pages 73119 in Edmisten, K. L. ed. 2001 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperation Extension Service.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 3 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-b4dcdd7-pwkpp Total loading time: 1.209 Render date: 2020-12-03T17:43:04.081Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 16:58:54 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *