Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Efficacy of Residual And Non-Residual Herbicides Used in Cotton Production Systems When Applied with Glyphosate, Glufosinate, or MSMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017


Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36832
Clifford H. Koger
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State Univesrity, Stoneville, MS 38776
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Caroline State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Donnie Miller
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University, St. Josephs, LA 71366
Edzard Van Santen
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate weed control provided by glyphosate, glufosinate, and MSMA applied alone or in mixture with residual and nonresidual last application (LAYBY) herbicides. Herbicide treatments included glyphosate early postemergence (EPOST) alone or followed by glyphosate, glufosinate, or MSMA late-postemergence (LPOST) alone or tank-mixed with one of the following LAYBY herbicides: carfentrazone-ethyl at 0.3 kg ai/ha, diuron at 1.12 kg ai/ha, flumioxazin at 0.07 kg ai/ha, fluometuron at 1.12 kg ai/ha, lactofen at 0.84 kg ai/ha, linuron at 0.56 kg ai/ha, oxyfluorfen at 1.12 kg ai/ha, prometryn at 1.12 kg ai/ha, or prometryn + trifloxysulfuron at 1.12 kg ai/ha + 10 g ai/ha. Residual herbicides were also applied alone LPOST. Weeds evaluated included barnyardgrass, broadleaf signalgrass, coffee senna, entireleaf morningglory, hemp sesbania, ivyleaf morningglory, johnsongrass, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, redroot pigweed, sicklepod, smooth pigweed, spiny amaranth, and velvetleaf. Treatments containing MSMA provided lower average weed control compared to those containing glyphosate or glufosinate, and residual herbicides applied alone provided inadequate weed control compared to mixtures containing a nonresidual herbicide. Across 315 of 567 comparisons (55%), when a LAYBY herbicide was added, weed control increased. The most difficult to control weed species at all locations was pitted morningglory. Barnyardgrass and hemp sesbania at the Mississippi location and hemp sesbania at the Louisiana location were collectively difficult to control across all treatments as well.


Type
Weed Management — Major Crops
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 Weathermax herbicide label. St. Louis, MO Monsanto Company. 49.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, W. L., Everman, W. J., Wilcut, J. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Collins, J. 2005. Weed management in liberty link cotton. in. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Charlotte, NC: Southern Weed Science Society. Pages 80.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. W., Hagood, E. S. Jr, and Davis, P. H. 2004. Trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) control in double-crop glyphosate-resistant soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 18:298303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. A., Carey, B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1996. Effect of growth stage and environment on foliar absorption, translocation, metabolism, and activity of nicosulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Sci. 44:447454.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., Corbett, J. L., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005a. Glufosinate antagonizes clethodim control of goosegrass (Elusine indica). Weed Technol. 19:664668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C., Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2005b. 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, flumeturon, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnes, B. C., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., and Perkins, W. R. 2003. Weed management in glufosinate tolerant cotton on the Texas southern high plains. in Proceeding of the Southern Weed Science Society, Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science Society. 2324.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2002. Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:326331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CTIC 2004. National Crop Residue Summary. http://www.conservationinformation.org/index.aspsite1actioncrm_results. Accessed: March 5, 2008.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Porterfield, D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Bromoxynil, prometryn, pyriothiobac, 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
Culpepper, A. S., Flanders, J. T., York, A. C., and Webster, T. M. 2004. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 18:432436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Prostko, E., Brecke, B., Norsworthy, J., York, A., and Jordan, D. 2005. Weed management issues in reduced tillage systems in the southeast. in Proceeding of the Southern Weed Science Society, Charlotte, NC: Southern Weed Science Society. 105.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. 15:544551.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
Jordan, D., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1997a. Monosodium methanearsonate influence of broadleaf weed control with selected postemergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci. 1:7275.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vadrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997b. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354362.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. R., Krausz, R. F., and Matthews, J. L. 1994. Soybean tolerance and summer annual weed control with glufosinate and glyphosate inn resistant soybeans. in Proceeding of the North Central Weed Science Society, Grand Rapids, MI: North Central Weed Science Society. 120.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Price, A. J., and Reddy, R. N. 2005. Weed control and cotton response to combinations of glyphosate and trifloxysulfuron. Weed Technol. 19:113121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, C. H. and Reddy, R. N. 2005. Glyphosate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in pitted moringglory (Ipomoea lacunose). Weed Sci. 53:277283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanclos, D. Y., Webster, E. P., and Zhang, W. 2002. Glufosinate tank-mix combinations in glufosinate-resistant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 16:659663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. K., Miller, D. R., Vidrine, P. R., and Kelly, S. T. Evaluation of suprend for weed control in cotton. 2003. in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science Society. 286.Google Scholar
Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Worster, C. A., and Radosevich, S. R. 2003. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops: a revisitation. Weed Technol. 17:202210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Jones, M. A., Toler, J. E., and Graham, R. F. 2003. South Carolina results: weed control in glufosinate tolerant cotton. in Proceeding of the Southern Weed Science Society, Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science Society. 8.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Effect of irrigation, soybean (Glycine max) density, and glyphosate on hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference in soybean. Weed Technol. 16:717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, flumeturon, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2004. Flumioxazin PP or PDS application timing followed by irrigation at emergence or after PDS treatment does not influence cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield. Weed Technol. 18:310314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2004. Control and species shift in bromoxynil- and glyhosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) rotation systems. Weed Technol. 18: 1331–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, D. W., Price, A. J., and Patterson, M. G. 2005. Evaluation of three winter cereals for weed control in conservation-tillage non-transgenic cotton. Weed Technol. 19:731736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2002. Residual herbicides used in combination with glyphosate and glufosinate in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:274281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingle, C. H. and Chandler, J. M. 2004. The effect of herbicides and crop rotation on weed control in glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 18:940946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., Murdock, E. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Sanderson, J. W. 2002. Weed management in liberty link cotton-Southern results. in Proceeding of the Southern Weed Science Society, Atlanta, GA: Southern Weed Science Society. 1213.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: 25 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 5th December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-b4dcdd7-tf8mx Total loading time: 0.239 Render date: 2020-12-05T06:42:43.401Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Dec 05 2020 05:59:41 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.

Efficacy of Residual And Non-Residual Herbicides Used in Cotton Production Systems When Applied with Glyphosate, Glufosinate, or MSMA
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.

Efficacy of Residual And Non-Residual Herbicides Used in Cotton Production Systems When Applied with Glyphosate, Glufosinate, or MSMA
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.

Efficacy of Residual And Non-Residual Herbicides Used in Cotton Production Systems When Applied with Glyphosate, Glufosinate, or MSMA
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *