Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Weed Control and Yield with Flumioxazin, Fomesafen, and S-Metolachlor Systems for Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Residual Weed Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Clayton, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC in 2005 to evaluate weed control and cotton response to preemergence treatments of pendimethalin alone or in a tank mixture with fomesafen, postemergence treatments of glufosinate applied alone or in a tank mixture with S-metolachlor, and POST-directed treatments of glufosinate in a tank mixture with flumioxazin or prometryn. Excellent weed control (> 91%) was observed where at least two applications were made in addition to glufosinate early postemergence (EPOST). A reduction in control of common lambsquarters (8%), goosegrass (20%), large crabgrass (18%), Palmer amaranth (13%), and pitted morningglory (9%) was observed when residual herbicides were not included in PRE or mid-POST programs. No differences in weed control or cotton lint yield were observed between POST-directed applications of glufosinate with flumioxazin compared to prometryn. Weed control programs containing three or more herbicide applications resulted in similar cotton lint yields at Clayton and Lewiston, and Rocky Mount showed the greatest variability with up to 590 kg/ha greater lint yield where fomesafen was included PRE compared to pendimethalin applied alone. Similarly, an increase in cotton lint yields of up to 200 kg/ha was observed where S-metolachlor was included mid-POST when compared to glufosinate applied alone, showing the importance of residual herbicides to help maintain optimal yields. Including additional modes of action with residual activity preemergence and postemergence provides a longer period of weed control, which helps maintain cotton lint yields.

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, , 2007. Ignite product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience LP. 5.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.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
Baumann, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Morgan, G. D., and Smith, J. W. 1998. Evaluations of fomesafen for weed control in Texas cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:4344.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. Pages 4772. In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. 631.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci 18:149154.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut. Weed Sci 50:378385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzer, E. and Al-Khatib, K. 2001. Photosynthetic inhibition and ammonium accumulation in Palmer amaranth after glufosinate application. Weed Sci 49:454459.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. 2006. Glyphosate-induced weed shifts. Weed Technol 20:277281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. H. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620626.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.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. Pages 274275. in. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Everman, W. J., Burke, I. C., Allen, J. R., Collins, J., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Weed control and yield with glufosinate-resistant cotton weed management systems. Weed Technol 21:695701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, J. A., Faircloth, W. H., Brecke, B. J., and Macdonald, G. E. 2007. Influence of cotton height on injury from flumioxazin and glyphosate applied post-directed. Weed Technol 21:709713.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pages 3738. In Camper, N. D. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: Wiley. 7273.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Burke, I. C., Miller, D. K., Kendig, J. A., Reddy, K. N., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. MSMA antagonizes glyphosate and glufosinate efficacy on broadleaf and grass weeds. Weed Technol 21:159165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacuesta, M., Munoz-Rueda, A., Gonzalez-Murua, C., and Sivak, M. N. 1992. Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence emission by barley leaves illuminated under photorespiratory and non-photorespiratory conditions. J. Exp. Bot 43:159165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunsford, J. L., Harrison, S., and Smith, J. D. 1998. Reflex use in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 43:86.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Retzinger, E. J. Jr. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol 17:605619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. 1999. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of glufosinate in five weed species as influenced by ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Sci 47:636643.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Cranmer, J. R., and Danehower, D. 2004a. Physiological basis for cotton tolerance to flumioxazin applied postemergence directed. Weed Sci 52:17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2004b. Flumioxazin preplant or POST-directed application timing followed by irrigation at emergence or after POST-directed spray treatment does not influence cotton yield. Weed Technol 18:310314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol 11:484488.Google Scholar
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Patterson, M. G., Faircloth, W. H., and Lunsford, J. N. 2004. Weed management with fomesafen preemergence in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 18:680686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Paulsgrove, M. D. 2002. Clomazone, fomesafen, and bromoxynil systems for bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 16:838844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendler, C. M., Barniske, M., and Wild, A. 1990. Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and photorespiration of C3 and C4 plants. Photosynth. Res 24:5561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. Pages 627661. In Ruberson, J. R. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker.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., Wehtje, G. R., and Whitwell, T. 1988. Efficacy and economics of pendimethalin herbicide combinations for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). 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. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2007. Weed Management in Cotton. Pages 77135. in. 2007 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

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: 35 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 16th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-wd6lz Total loading time: 0.553 Render date: 2021-01-16T14:53:50.012Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Jan 16 2021 14:51:26 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": 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 Control and Yield with Flumioxazin, Fomesafen, and S-Metolachlor Systems for Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Residual Weed Management
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 Control and Yield with Flumioxazin, Fomesafen, and S-Metolachlor Systems for Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Residual Weed Management
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 Control and Yield with Flumioxazin, Fomesafen, and S-Metolachlor Systems for Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Residual Weed Management
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *