Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-24rpz Total loading time: 0.316 Render date: 2022-10-06T21:40:00.071Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Interval between sequential glufosinate applications influences weed control in cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2020

Taylor M. Randell*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
Lavesta C. Hand
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
Jenna C. Vance
Affiliation:
Research Professional, Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Taylor M. Randell, Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, 2356 Rainwater Road, Tifton, GA31794. (Email: trandell@uga.edu)

Abstract

Dicamba and 2,4-D systems control many problematic weeds; however, drift to susceptible crops can be a concern in diverse production areas. Glufosinate-based systems are an alternative, but current recommended rates of glufosinate can result in variable control. Research was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to investigate the optimum time interval between sequential glufosinate applications and determine if the addition of glyphosate with glufosinate is beneficial for controlling Palmer amaranth and annual grasses in cotton. The interval between sequential applications (1, 3, 5, 7, 10, or 14 d or no second spray) was the whole plot and herbicide option (glufosinate or glufosinate plus glyphosate) was the subplot. Combined over herbicides, Palmer amaranth 15- to 20-cm tall (at four locations) was controlled 98% to 99% with sequential intervals of 1 to 7 d compared with 70% to 88% with intervals of 10 or 14 d. Lowest biomass weight and population densities were noted with 1- to 7-d intervals. Large crabgrass 15- to 20-cm tall (at five locations) was controlled 93% to 98% with glufosinate applications 3- to 7-d apart as compared with 76% to 81% with applications 10- to 14-d apart. Lowest biomass weights were observed with 1- to 7-d intervals. When glufosinate controlled grass less than 93%, adding glyphosate was beneficial. Neither interval between sequential applications nor herbicide option influenced cotton yield. Shorter time intervals between sequential application and including glyphosate can improve the effectiveness of a glufosinate-based system in managing Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Daniel Stephenson, Louisana State University Agricultural Center

References

Anonymous (2017) Liberty ® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience. 27 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018) Xtendimax ® herbicide product label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Blair-Kerth, LK, Dotray, PA, Keeling, JW, Gannaway, JR, Oliver, MJ, Quisenberry, JE (2001) Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate. Weed Sci 49:37538010.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0375:TOTCTG]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM (2015) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in dicamba-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 29:758770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chahal, GS, Johnson, WG (2012) Influence of glyphosate or glufosinate combinations with growth regulator herbicides and other agrochemicals in controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds. Weed Technol 26:63864310.1614/WT-D-12-00058.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2002) Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:32633110.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0326:GEOASI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, JB, Heider, DJ, Rittmeyer, RA (2014) Relationship between visual injury from synthetic auxin and glyphosate herbicides and snap beans and potato yield. Weed Technol 28:67167810.1614/WT-D-14-00033.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, JL, Askew, SD, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2004) Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol 18:44345310.1614/WT-03-139RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigmyle, BD, Ellis, JM, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of weed height and glufosinate plus 2,4-D combinations on weed control in soybean with resistance to 2,4-D. Weed Technol 27:271280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:62062610.1614/WS-06-001R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Shugart, J, Leifheit, N, Curry, M, Gray, T (2018) Effects of low-dose applications of 2,4-D and dicamba on watermelon. Weed Technol 32:26727210.1017/wet.2018.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Vance, JC (2019) Palmer amaranth control in Georgia cotton during 2019. Circular 952. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM, York, AC (2010) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the United States. Pages 195212in Nandula, VK, ed. Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc 10.1002/9780470634394.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Roberts, P, Whitaker, JR (2009) Weed control and crop response to glufosinate applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF’ cotton. Weed Technol 23:35636210.1614/WT-08-168.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, M, Harris, G, Kemerait, B, Prostko, E, Roberts, P, Smith, A, Rabinowitz, A, Porter, W (2019) 2019 Georgia Soybean Production Guide. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. 95 pGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, ER (2006) How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci 54:58859610.1614/WS-05-063R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JM (2009) Evolution of glyphosate-resistant crop technology. Weed Sci 57:10811710.1614/WS-08-030.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H, Endres, G, Jenks, B, Ostlie, M, Reinhardt, T, Robinson, A, Stenger, J, Zollinger, R (2017) Defining glyphosate and dicamba drift injury to dry edible pea, dry edible bean, and potato. HortTech 27:50250910.21273/HORTTECH03679-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) Weeds resistant to EPSP synthase inhibitors (G/9) by species and country. http://weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12. Accessed: March 13, 2019Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:34735510.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0347:GAOFAS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, WG, Hallett, SG, Legleiter, TR, Whitford, F, Weller, SC, Bordelon, BP, Lerner, BR (2012) 2,4-D and Dicamba-Tolerant Crops—Some Facts to Consider. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K, Steckel, L, Moechnig, M, Loux, M, Bernards, M, Smeda, R (2010) Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans. Crop Management 9(1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:19920410.1017/S0043174500079054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, GR, Johnson, DJ, Weller, SC (2012) Dose response of glyphosate and dicamba on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) injury. Weed Technol 26:25626010.1614/WT-D-11-00073.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, ML (2011) Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 21:20320910.11613/BM.2011.029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchant, RM, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM, Richburg, JS, Braxton, LB (2014) Salvage Palmer amaranth programs can be effective in cotton resistant to glyphosate, 2,4-D, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 28:31632210.1614/WT-D-13-00119.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohseni-Moghadam, M, Doohan, D (2015) Response of bell pepper and broccoli to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 29:22623210.1614/WT-D-14-00105.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, KJ, Dixon, PM (2015) Analysis of combined experiments revisited. Agron J 107:76377110.2134/agronj13.0485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62:758410.1525/bio.2012.62.1.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, RL (2018) Impacts of weed resistance to herbicides on United States (U.S.) cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) production. Outlooks Pest Manag 29:5910.1564/v29_feb_02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onofri, A, Carbonell, EA, Piepho, HP, Mortimer, AM, Cousens, RD (2009) Current statistical issues in Weed Research. Weed Res 50:52410.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00758.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM (2011) Herbicide programs for enhanced glyphosate-resistant and glufosinate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 25:52653410.1614/WT-D-11-00027.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:39340210.1614/WS-D-13-00077.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Webster, TM, Culpepper, AS, Kichler, J (2011) The biology and ecology of Palmer amaranth: Implications for control. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia. Circular 1000. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Spaunhorst, DJ, Bradley, KW (2013) Influence of dicamba and dicamba plus glyphosate combinations on the control of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Technol 27:67568110.1614/WT-D-13-00081.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Stephenson, D, Bond, J, Stewart, SD, Barnett, KA (2012) Evaluation of WideStrike® Flex cotton response to over-the-top glufosinate tank mixtures. J Cotton Sci 16:8895Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2009) Time of day impacts postemergence weed control in corn. Weed Technol 23:34635510.1614/WT-08-150.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, BE, Schabenberger, O, Kells, JJ (1999) Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol 13:542547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (2016) U.S. grade standards for fruit, vegetables, nuts, and other specialty products. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (2019) Understanding food quality labels. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 7 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2018) Quick stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/62BE4BE7-E1A2-3E2B-AEBB-B60DA5C7FAFD#75C56012-A673-3BB5-8898-C4734905C364. Accessed: August 14, 2019Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Statistics Service (2019a) 2017 Census of Agriculture: Georgia State and County Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1238 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019b) Crop Production 2018 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 129 pGoogle Scholar
[US-EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Spray Drift of Pesticides. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Publication 7506C. 6 pGoogle Scholar
[US-EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017a) Compliance Advisory. July 2017.Crop Damage Complaints Related to Dicamba Herbicides Raising Concerns. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/fifra-dicambacomplianceadvisory-201708.pdf. Accessed: August 14, 2019Google Scholar
[US-EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017b) Dicamba/Auxin Formulations. An Update on Label Changes in Response to Reported Incidents. https://www.epa.gov/sites/producwtion/files/2017-11/documents/ppdc-dicamba-overview-update-nov-1-2017.pdf. Accessed: August 14, 2019Google Scholar
[US-EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Registration of Enlist Duo. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo. Accessed: August 16, 2019Google Scholar
[US-EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Registration of dicamba for use on dicamba-tolerant crops. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-dicamba-use-dicamba-tolerant-crops. Accessed: August 16, 2019Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:122710.1614/WT-D-12-00113.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2009) Weed survey—southern states. Broadleaf crops subsection. Pages 510525in 2009 Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 62nd Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey—southern states. Broadleaf crops subsection. Pages 275287in 2013 Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 66th Annual Meeting. Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Grey, TL (2015) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) morphology, growth, and seed production in Georgia. Weed Sci 63:26427210.1614/WS-D-14-00051.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, J, Culpepper, S, Freeman, M, Harris, G, Kemerait, B, Perry, C, Porter, W, Roberts, P, Liu, Y, Smith, A (2018) 2019 Georgia Cotton Production Guide. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. 146 pGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in ‘PHY 485 WRF’ cotton. Weed Technol 25:18319110.1614/WT-D-10-00008.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, CK (2012) Pesticide residue in imported, organic, and “suspect” fruit and vegetables. J Agric Food Chem 60:4425442910.1021/jf205131qCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, K, Stubbs, K (2018) 2017 Georgia Farm Gate Value Report. AR-18-01. The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. 173 pGoogle Scholar
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Interval between sequential glufosinate applications influences weed control in cotton
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Interval between sequential glufosinate applications influences weed control in cotton
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Interval between sequential glufosinate applications influences weed control in cotton
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *