Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T14:54:13.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Second-generation Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton Tolerance to Combinations of Glyphosate with Insecticides and Mepiquat Chloride

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donnie K. Miller*
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, LSU AgCenter, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Jimmy X. Zumba
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, LSU AgCenter, 161 Ag. Admin. Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Ralph Bagwell
Affiliation:
Tom H. Scott Research and Extension Education Center, LSU AgCenter, 212 B Macon Ridge Rd., Winnsboro, LA 71295
Eugene Burris
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, LSU AgCenter, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Ernest L. Clawson
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, LSU AgCenter, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
B. Roger Leonard
Affiliation:
Macon Ridge Research Station, LSU AgCenter, 212 A Macon Ridge Rd., Winnsboro, LA 71295
Derek M. Scroggs
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
Alexander M. Stewart
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
P. Roy Vidrine
Affiliation:
Dean Lee Research Station, 8105 Tom Bowman Dr., Alexandria, LA 71302
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dmiller@agcenter.lsu.edu

Abstract

Field trials were conducted in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate application of glyphosate alone or plus the plant growth regulator mepiquat chloride with 20 different insecticides to second-generation glyphosate-resistant cotton at the pinhead square or first bloom growth stages. At 7 DAT, averaged across cotton growth stages and herbicide treatments, combination with insecticides profenofos and methomyl resulted in 5 and 9% plant injury, respectively, and were the only insecticide combinations that resulted in injury greater than glyphosate or glyphosate plus mepiquat chloride applied alone. By 14 DAT, cotton injury was less than 2% for all treatments. Averaged across cotton growth stages and insecticides, addition of mepiquat chloride to glyphosate resulted in a 4 and 6 cm height reduction at 7 and 28 DAT, respectively. Seed cotton yield and percent first harvest were similar for all treatments, indicating that cotton injury and height reductions observed after application did not result in yield reductions or maturity delays. Glyphosate combined with insecticides and mepiquat chloride, in accordance with herbicide labeling for second-generation glyphosate-resistant cotton, offers producers the ability to integrate pest and crop management strategies and reduce application costs with minimal effect on the crop.

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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 2007a. Mepex Gin Out plant growth regulator product label. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Crop Protection, Laurel Run Bldg., Chestnut Run Plaza, Wilmington, DE 19898. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld71D002.pdf. Accessed: May 18, 2007.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007b. Roundup Weathermax herbicide product label. Monsanto Company, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63167. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld5UJ029.pdf. Accessed: May 18, 2007.Google Scholar
Bagwell, R. D., Leonard, B. R., Burris, G., Stewart, S., Faircloth, J., Kelly, S., Pinnell-Alison, C., Erwin, T., Farris, M., and Micinski, S. 2003. Cotton insect control 2003 LCES Pub. 5. 1083 5/2003 Rev.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B. and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Economic assessment of weed management in strip- and conventional-tillage nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Technol. 27:4552.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2006. Weed management with S-metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 20:232241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2:174185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and non-transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411420.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L., York, A. C., Yelverton, F. H., Spears, J. F., Bowman, D. T., Bacheler, J. S., Koenning, S. R., Crozier, C. R., Brown, A. B., and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. North Carolina Cotton Production Guide: http://ipm.ncsu.edu/Production_Guides/Cotton/contents.html. Accessed: March 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. and Cothren, J. T. 1983. Methomyl's role in cotton leaf senescence. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production Conf. 1:53.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:1926.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Baughman, T. A., Everitt, J. D., Lyon, L. L., and Dotray, P. A. 2003. Tolerance and weed management in Roundup Ready Flex cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:2244.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. T., Miller, D. K., and Mathews, M. S. 2006. Efficacy and crop tolerance of MON 3539 alone or tank-mixed with insecticides in Roundup Ready Flex cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:44.Google Scholar
Martens, A., Hart, J., Sammons, B., Cerny, E., Huber, S., and Oppenhuizen, M. 2003. 2002 Results of Roundup Ready Flex cotton trials. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1:2245.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Mathews, M. S., and Lee, D. R. 2004. Weed control programs in Roundup Ready Flex cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:264.Google Scholar
Pankey, J. H., Griffin, J. L., Leonard, B. R., Miller, D. K., Downer, R. G., and Costello, R. W. 2004. Glyphosate-insecticide combination effects on weed and insect control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:698703.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Edmisten, K. L., Oliver, T., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, R., and Allen, N. S. 2002a. Use of digital image analysis, viability stains, and germination assays to estimate conventional and glyphosate-resistant cotton pollen viability. Crop Sci. 42:21932200.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J. F., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by the herbicide glyphosate. Weed Sci. 50:438447.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002c. Accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J. Ag. Food Chem. 50:506512.Google Scholar
Robertson, W. C. and Cothren, J. T. 1989. Physiological response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to moisture availability and Curacron treatment. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production Conf. 1:6061.Google Scholar
Robertson, W. C. and Cothren, J. T. 1990. Physiological and lint yield effects of an organophosphate insecticide on cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production Conf. 1:59.Google Scholar
Sankula, S. and Blumenthal, E. 2004. Impacts on US agriculture of biotechnology- derived crops planted in 2003—an update of eleven case studies. Washington, D. C National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 35. http://www.monsantoafrica.com/content/resources/scientific/04/10-04b.pdf. Accessed: January 18, 2004.Google Scholar
Scroggs, D. M., Miller, D. K., Griffin, J. L., Geaghan, J. P., Vidrine, P. R., and Stewart, A. M. 2005. Glyphosate efficacy on selected weed species is unaffected by chemical co-application. Weed Technol. 19:10121016.Google Scholar