Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Economic Assessment of Weed Management in Strip- and Conventional-Tillage Nontransgenic and Transgenic Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Studies were conducted to evaluate weed management systems in nontransgenic, bromoxynil-resistant, and glyphosate-resistant cotton in strip- and conventional-tillage environments. Tillage did not affect weed control, cotton lint yields, or net returns. Early season stunting in strip-tillage cotton was 5% or less, regardless of herbicide system or cultivar and was transient. Excellent (> 90%) control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and Ipomoea species, including entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted and tall morningglories, jimsonweed, prickly sida, and velvetleaf, was achieved with systems containing bromoxynil, glyphosate, and pyrithiobac early postemergence (EPOST). Glyphosate systems provided better and more consistent control of fall panicum and large crabgrass than bromoxynil and pyrithiobac systems. Bromoxynil and pyrithiobac EPOST did not control sicklepod unless applied in mixture with MSMA and followed by (fb) a late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatment of prometryn plus MSMA. Palmer amaranth was controlled (> 90%) with all glyphosate and pyrithiobac systems and with the bromoxynil system that included a broadcast soil-applied herbicide treatment. Bromoxynil systems without a broadcast soil-applied herbicide treatment controlled Palmer amaranth 87% or less. Herbicide systems that included glyphosate EPOST controlled sicklepod with or without a soil-applied herbicide treatment. The highest yielding cotton included all the glyphosate systems and bromoxynil systems that contained a soil-applied herbicide treatment. Nontransgenic systems that included a soil-applied herbicide treatment yielded less than a system with soil-applied treatment plus glyphosate EPOST. Net returns from glyphosate systems were generally higher than net returns from bromoxynil or pyrithiobac systems.

Type
Research
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 136.Google Scholar
Allen, R. L., Snipes, C. E., and Crowder, S. H. 1997. Fruiting response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 11:5163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous, , 1998a. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN Agri-Growth. 4950.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 1998b. Summary of Annual Ownership Costs, Performance Rates, and Hourly Operation Costs by Machines: 1998 Field Crop Budgets. Raleigh, NC Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University. 13.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 1999. Roundup Ultra® supplemental label. Monsanto Publication No.21137X3-20. St. Louis, MO Monsanto.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2002. Core 4—Conservation for Agriculture's Future. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/CT/CT.html. Accessed: July 2, 2003.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 1998. Variety selection. in. 1998 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 2442.Google Scholar
Bradley, J. F. 1995. Success with no-till cotton. in McClelland, M.R., Valco, T.D., Frans, R.E., eds. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Fayetteville, AR Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station. 3138.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. and Cole, T. 1997. Cotton: estimated revenue, operating expenses, annual ownership costs, and net revenue per acre. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics Budget 76-1. 3.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. in McWhorter, C.G., Abernathy, J.R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN The Cotton Foundation. 4772.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149154.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2005. Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 19:422429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clewis, S. C., 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). Weed Technol. 20:232241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Porterfield, D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Bromoxynil, prometryn, pyrithiobac, and MSMA weed management systems for bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:712718.CrossRefGoogle 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. 18:443453.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:174185.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., and Brownie, C. 1999. Influence of bromoxynil on annual grass control by graminicides. Weed Sci. 47:123128.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10:712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, K. L. and Coble, H. D. 1984. Effect of DPX-PE350 on the efficacy of graminicides. Weed Sci. 42:222226.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. in Camper, N.D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society. 3738.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
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 applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:1926.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1997. Monosodium methanearsonate influence on broadleaf weed control with selected postemergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci. 1:7275.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Bryson, C. T. 1992. Herbicide use trends in cotton. in McWhorter, C.G., Abernathy, J.R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN The Cotton Foundation. 233294.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. 6175.Google Scholar
Ottis, B. V., Tingle, C. H., and Chandler, J. M. 2000. Cotton weed management systems for central Texas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:5.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D., Barker, WhitneeL., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Bromoxynil-resistant cotton and selected weed response to mixtures of bromoxynil and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 19:753761.CrossRefGoogle 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. S. 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., 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. F., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by the herbicide glyphosate. Weed Sci. 50:438447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002c. Accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J. Ag. Food Chem. 50:506512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642647.CrossRefGoogle 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. 51:10021009.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 non-transgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sholar, J. R., Mozingo, R. W., and Beasley, J. P. Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. in Pattee, H.E., Stalker, H.T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK American Peanut Research and Education Society. 354382.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:2127.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of several morningglory species (Ipomoea sp.) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 42:227232.Google 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. 20:613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004a. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn with glyphosate, halosulfuron, and mesotrione. Weed Technol. 18:826834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Burke, I. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004b. Weed management in glyphosate-resistant corn with glyphosate and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 18:10491057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troeh, F. R., Hobbs, J. A., and Donahue, R. L. 1991. Tillage practices for conservation. in Troeh, F.R., Hobbs, J.A., Donahue, R.L., eds. Soil and Water Conservation. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. 232234.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., McDowell, L. L., and Hagen, L. J. 1985. Environmental effects of limited tillage. in Wiese, A.F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 266281.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Shaw, D. R., Buchanan, T. A., Snipes, C. E., and Bryson, C. T. 2000. Influence of cultivation timing on pyrithiobac performance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14:116121.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 Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. in Ruberson, J.R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York Marcel Dekker. 627661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Brecke, B. J. et al. 1999. A beltwide evaluation of weed management systems in transgenic and non-transgenic cotton. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 52:189190.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. 213230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Hinton, J. D. 1997. Weed management in no-till and conventional-tillage Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21:780.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. 11:221226.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. 3:203208.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management programs for oil seed crops. in Smith, A.E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Programs. New York Marcel-Dekker. 343400.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. 2000. Weed management in cotton. in Edmisten, K.L., ed. 2001 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 73119.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: 9 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 24th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-9l59n Total loading time: 0.391 Render date: 2021-01-24T19:14:43.832Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

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.

Economic Assessment of Weed Management in Strip- and Conventional-Tillage Nontransgenic and Transgenic 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.

Economic Assessment of Weed Management in Strip- and Conventional-Tillage Nontransgenic and Transgenic 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.

Economic Assessment of Weed Management in Strip- and Conventional-Tillage Nontransgenic and Transgenic Cotton
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *