Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:55:10.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of WideStrike Cotton Response to Repeated Applications of Glufosinate at Various Application Timings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kelly A. Barnett ,
A. Stanley Culpepper ,
Alan C. York  and
Lawrence E. Steckel
Kelly A. Barnett
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 478, Tifton, GA 31794
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, 4401D Williams Hall, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Boulevard, Jackson, TN 38301
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lsteckel@utk.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds are most challenging for growers to control in cotton in the midsouth region of the United States. As a result, growers in these states are transitioning from a glyphosate-based system to a glufosinate-based system. A field study was conducted in 2010 and 2011 in Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee to determine the effect of repeated glufosinate applications to WideStrike cotton applied at various application timings. One to three glufosinate applications at 594 g ai ha−1 were applied to cotton at the two-leaf, seven-leaf, bloom, or 2 wk after bloom stages. Visual estimates of crop injury were evaluated after each application, in addition to crop height, development, and yield. Crop injury after each glufosinate application typically ranged from 3 to 11%, with higher injury observed where multiple glufosinate applications were made. Crop height differences were noted after the bloom and 2 wk after bloom applications. Treatments that had one, two, or three glufosinate applications had reduced crop height when compared with the weed-free control. Node above cracked boll ratings also indicated that glufosinate treatments may have stressed the cotton. Ultimately, yield was reduced where three glufosinate treatments were applied to WideStrike cotton. In addition, one glufosinate application at the bloom stage or two glufosinate applications at the bloom and 2 wk after bloom stages reduced yield when compared with the weed-free control. Although it is a legal application, growers should use caution when applying glufosinate to WideStrike cotton because the manufacturer of glufosinate and the manufacturer of WideStrike cotton do not recommend this application. However, where GR Palmer amaranth is present, these applications may be necessary.

Las malezas resistentes a glyphosate (GR) son de los mayores retos para los productores de algodón en la región sur-central de los Estados Unidos. Como consecuencia de este problema, los productores en estos estados están cambiando de un sistema basado en glyphosate a un sistema basado en glufosinate. En 2010 y 2011, se realizó un estudio de campo en Georgia, North Carolina y Tennessee, para determinar el efecto en el algodón WideStrike de aplicaciones repetidas de glufosinate realizadas en varios momentos de aplicación. De una a tres aplicaciones con 594 g ai ha−1 fueron aplicadas a algodón en los estadios de dos hojas, siete hojas, floración, o 2 semanas después de la floración. Estimaciones visuales de daño en el cultivo fueron realizadas después de cada aplicación, además se determinó la altura, el desarrollo y el rendimiento del cultivo. Típicamente, el daño en el cultivo después de cada aplicación de glufosinate varió entre 3 y 11%, con mayor daño observado cuando se hicieron aplicaciones múltiples de glufosinate. Se notó diferencias en altura del cultivo después de aplicaciones en la floración y 2 semanas después de la misma. Los tratamientos que tuvieron una, dos, ó tres aplicaciones de glufosinate redujeron la altura del cultivo cuando se comparó con el testigo libre de malezas. Evaluaciones de nudos por encima del primer fruto abierto también indicaron que los tratamientos con glufosinate podrían haber estresado al algodón. Ultimadamente, el rendimiento se redujo cuando se aplicó tres tratamientos con glufosinate a algodón WideStrike. Adicionalmente, una aplicación de glufosinate en el estadio de floración o dos aplicaciones de glufosinate en los estadios de floración y 2 semanas después de la floración redujo el rendimiento en comparación con el testigo libre de malezas. Aunque es una aplicación legal, los productores deben ser cuidadosos cuando apliquen glufosinate a algodón WideStrike porque el fabricante de glufosinate y la comercializadora del algodón WideStrike no recomiendan esta aplicación. Sin embargo, donde esté presente Amaranthus palmeri GR, estas aplicaciones podrían ser necesarias.

Keywords

GlufosinateglyphosatePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watscotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Cotton cultivar ‘PHY 375 WRF’glufosinateglyphosateglyphosate resistanceherbicide resistanceherbicide-resistant weeds
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 154 - 160
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Askew, SD, Bailey, WA, Scott, GH, Wilcut, JW (2002) Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci 50:512–520 Google Scholar
Baylis, AD (2000) Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Manag Sci 56:299–308 Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892 Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, MW (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 Google Scholar
Castle, LA, Wu, G, McElroy, D (2006) Agricultural input traits: past, present and future. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17:105–112 Google Scholar
Coetzer, E, Al-Khatib, K (2001) Photosynthetic inhibition and ammonium accumulation in Palmer amaranth after glufosinate application. Weed Sci 49:454–459 CrossRefGoogle 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. 54:620–626 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Batts, RB, Jennings, KM (2000) Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:77–88 Google 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 23:356–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Steckel, LE, Bond, JA, Stephenson, D (2013) Palmer amaranth control significantly influenced by the time of day in which liberty is applied. Pages 168 in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society (SWSS). Las Cruces, NM: SWSS Google Scholar
Dodds, DM, Barber, LT, Buehring, NW, Collins, GD, Main, CL (2011) Tolerance of WideStrike cotton to glufosinate. Page 1542 in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Atlanta, GA. Cordova, TN National Cotton Council of America Google Scholar
Dotray, PA, Keeling, JW, Henniger, CG, Abernathy, JR (1996) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 10:7–12 Google Scholar
Dow Chemical Company (2006) Product Safety Assessment WideStrike Insect Protection. http://www.dow.com/productsafety/finder/ws.htm. Accessed: January 4, 2011Google Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2009) Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: now and in the future. Agbioforum 12(3–4):346–347 Google Scholar
Everman, WJ, Burke, IC, Allen, JR, Collins, J, Wilcut, JW (2007) Weed control and yield with glufosinate-resistant cotton weed management systems. Weed Technol 21:695–701 Google Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: South Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Green, JM (2009) Evolution of glyphosate-resistant crop technology. Weed Sci 57:108–117 Google Scholar
Heap, IM (2014) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: June 25, 2012Google Scholar
Herouet, C, Esdaile, DJ, Mallyon, BA, Debuyne, E, Schulz, A, Currier, T, Hendricks, K, van der Klis, RJ, Rouan, D (2005) Safety evaluation of the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase proteins encoded by the pat and bar sequences that confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium herbicide in transgenic plants. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 41:134–139 Google Scholar
MacRae, AW, Culpepper, AS, Kichler, JM (2007) Managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in LibertyLink cotton. Pages 1232–1233 in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, New Orleans, LA. Cordova, TN National Cotton Council of America Google Scholar
Muzik, TJ, Mauldin, WG (1964) Influence of environment on the response of plants to herbicides. Weeds 12:142–145 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 Google Scholar
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Module II: Herbicide Biochemistry, Herbicide Metabolism and the Residues in Glufosinate-Ammonium (Phosphinothricin)-Tolerant Transgenic Plants. Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 25. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2002)14&doclanguage=en. Accessed: January 11, 2011Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Bond, JA, Stewart, SD, Barnett, KA (2012) Evaluation of WideStrike Flex Cotton response to over-the-top glufosinate tank-mixtures. J Cotton Sci 16:88–95 Google Scholar
Tan, S, Evans, R, Singh, B (2006) Herbicidal inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis and herbicide-tolerant crops. Amino Acids 30:195–204 Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS]. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service. (2012) Cotton Varieties Planted 2012 crop. http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/cnavar.pdf. Accessed: September 16, 2012Google Scholar
[UT Extension] University of Tennessee Extension Service (2011) Official Cotton Variety Trials http://www.utcrops.com/cotton/VarietyTestingData/PB1742%20Cotton%20Variety%20Results%202011.pdf. Accessed: June 25, 2012Google Scholar
Wendler, C, Barnisk, CM, Wild, A (1990) Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and photorespiration of C3 and C4 plants. Photosynth Res 24:55–61 Google Scholar
Whitaker, J, York, A, Jordan, D, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF Cotton. Weed Technol 25:183–191 Google Scholar