Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Using Trifloxysulfuron with Glyphosate for Cotton Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. James Grichar
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Beeville, TX 78102
Brad W. Minton
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection, Cypress, TX 77433
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field studies were conducted during the 2002 thru 2004 growing seasons at two locations in the south-central Texas cotton-production region to evaluate trifloxysulfuron and trifloxysulfuron plus prometryn in combination with either S-metolachlor or glyphosate or both for weed control and cotton response. Cotton leaf burn (13 to 19%) was noted in 2002 at one location with trifloxysulfuron plus prometryn applied late POST-directed (LPDIR). Herbicide combinations that included trifloxysulfuron controlled barnyardgrass, hemp sesbania, yellow nutsedge, Palmer amaranth, smooth pigweed, ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, and smellmelon at least 80% in most instances. Glyphosate applied early POST over-the-top (EPOTT) and mid-POST over-the-top (MPOTT) at 0.84 kg ai/ha followed by trifloxysulfuron plus prometryn at 1.1 kg ai/ha applied LPDIR controlled the above-mentioned weeds plus Texas panicum at least 94%. No other herbicide systems provided effective control (greater than 79%) of Texas panicum. Higher cotton yields in 2002 were obtained with herbicide systems that included glyphosate alone or glyphosate plus S-metolachlor applied EPOTT or LPOTT followed by trifloxysulfuron plus prometryn applied LPDIR, whereas in 2003, none of the herbicide systems increased yield over the nontreated check.

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

Anonymous, , 1998. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Pages 2930. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth.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. 13:308313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362662 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293298.CrossRefGoogle 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
Brecke, B. J., Bridges, D. C., and Grey, T. 2000. CGA 362622 for postemergence weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:2627.Google 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
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA 362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:749754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1997. Physiological basis for nicosulfuron and primusulfuron selectivity in five plant species. Weed Sci. 45:2230.Google 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
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. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., and Monks, C. D. 2001. Evaluation of CGA 362622 for weed control in Alabama cotton. in Dugger, C.P. and Richter, D.A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 1210.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
Gimenez, A., York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Annual grass control with glyphosate mixtures with imazethapyr, bentazon, and 2,4-DB. Weed Technol. 12:134136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Lemon, R. G., Brewer, K. D., and Minton, B. W. 2001. S-metolachlor compared with metolachlor on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:107111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Lemon, R. G., Dotray, P. A., and Besler, B. A. 2004. Control of problem weeds and net returns with herbicide programs in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Pages 485515. in Inderjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr, Schraer, S. M., Pearson, C. A. S., Foresman, C., and Mclean, H. S. 2003. SuprendTM, a POST-directed herbicide for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:224.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr, Wells, J. W., James, J. R., Bachman, W., Cloud, G., Minton, B., Moore, S., Porterfield, D., and Smith, H. R. 2001. The effect of CGA 362622 applications on weed control and cotton yield. in Dugger, C.P. and Richter, D.A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 1211.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
Kendig, J. A., Cobill, R. M., Hinklin, B. A., and Ezell, P. M. 2004. Suprend (prometryn + trifloxysulfuron) weed control programs in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:77.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M. T., Barber, L. T., Buehring, N. W., and Reynolds, D. B. 2003. Tankmix combinations of trifloxysulfuron and prometryn for POST-directed weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:17.Google Scholar
Lee, D. R., Miller, D. K., Vidrine, P. R., and Kelley, S. T. 2003. Evaluation of Suprend for weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:286.Google Scholar
Livingston, S. D., Janak, J. D., and Matthies, A. Z. Jr. 2004. Early and late-season suppression and control of Texas smellmelon in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:27.Google Scholar
Pline-Srnic, W. 2006. Physiological mechanisms of glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol. 20:290300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA 362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:642647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA 362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) response to residual and in-season treatments of CGA-362622. Weed Technol. 17:441445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Wells, J. W. 2003. Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and non-transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 51:10002–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Preston, C. 2006. Evolved glyphosate resistance in plants: biochemical and genetic basis of resistance. Weed Technol. 282289.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004. Mixtures of glyphosate with CGA 362622 for weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Hatzois, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of CGA-362622 in cotton and two weeds. Weed Sci. 51:157162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. and Singh, M. 2004. Effect of growth stage on trifloxysulfuron and glyphosate efficacy in twelve weed species of citrus groves. Weed Technol. 18:10311036.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
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Slife, F. W. 1979. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) competition and control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 27:3237.Google Scholar
Thullen, R. J. and Keeley, P. E. 1980. Competition between yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli var. frumentacea). Weed Sci. 28:2426.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. 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
Vidrine, P. R. and Miller, D. K. 2001. Evaluation of CGA 362622 in Louisiana cotton. in Dugger, C.P. and Richter, D.A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 1232.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
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2000. Weed management in cotton. Pages 69111. in Edminsten, K.L. ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication AG-417.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: 4 *
View data table for this chart

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

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-2sjx4 Total loading time: 0.247 Render date: 2021-01-20T22:31:27.391Z 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.

Using Trifloxysulfuron with Glyphosate for Cotton Weed Control
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.

Using Trifloxysulfuron with Glyphosate for Cotton Weed Control
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.

Using Trifloxysulfuron with Glyphosate for Cotton Weed Control
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *