Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T22:06:47.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Yield with Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Weed Management Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wesley J. Everman ,
Ian C. Burke ,
Jayla R. Allen ,
Jim Collins  and
John W. Wilcut
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Box 646420, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164–6420
Jayla R. Allen
Affiliation:
2 TW Alexander Drive, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Jim Collins
Affiliation:
2 TW Alexander Drive, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Box 7620, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail address: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Clayton, Goldsboro, Kinston, and Rocky Mount, NC in 2003 to evaluate weed control and cotton response to postemergence (POST) treatments of glufosinate applied alone or in tank mixtures with s-metolachlor, pyrithiobac, or trifloxysulfuron. Late-season control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, ivyleaf morningglory, jimsonweed, pitted morningglory, purple nutsedge, and sicklepod with glufosinate early postemergence (EPOST) was ≥90%. The addition of S-metolachlor to glufosinate EPOST improved control of all weeds except sicklepod, ivyleaf morningglory, and entireleaf morningglory. When applied POST, glufosinate provided ≥90% late season control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, entireleaf morningglory, ivyleaf morningglory, jimsonweed, large crabgrass, pitted morningglory, purple nutsedge, and sicklepod. Control of goosegrass and Palmer amaranth was 81 and 84%, respectively. When pyrithiobac or trifloxysulfuron were added in POST tank mixtures, control of Palmer amaranth improved 6 and 9 percentage points, respectively. Control of goosegrass remained near 80% regardless of herbicide treatment used. The addition of a late post-directed (LAYBY) tank-mixture of glufosinate plus prometryn provided ≥88% late season control of all weeds. Reduced control of goosegrass and Palmer amaranth was observed with the LAYBY tank mixture of glufosinate plus MSMA when compared to other LAYBY tank mixtures. Cotton lint yields in plots receiving any herbicide application were significantly higher than plots receiving no herbicide application for all application timings. Cotton lint yields were ≥ 740 kg/ha where an EPOST was applied and ≥ 680 kg/ha when a POST herbicide was applied. Cotton lint yields were at least 200 kg/ha greater on plots receiving a LAYBY application when compared to plots where no LAYBY treatment was applied.

Keywords

GlufosinateMSMAprometrynpyrithiobacS-metolachlortrifloxysulfuroncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica ELEINivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. IPOHEjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. DATSTlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis L. DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLApurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. CYPROsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. Irwin and Barnaby CASOBcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Cottonherbicide injuryglufosinatepyrithiobactrifloxysulfuronweed controlyield
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 695 - 701
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 2005a. Envoke product label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection. 7.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005b. Staple product label. Wilmington, DE du Pont de Nemours and Co. 6.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005c. Ignite product label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience LP. 5.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005d. Dual II Magnum product label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection. 17.Google Scholar
Bacheler, J. S. 2005. Managing insects in cotton. in. 2005 Cotton Information. Publication AG-417. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 115–141.Google Scholar
Behrendt, H., Matthies, M., Gildemeister, H., and Gorlitz, G. 1990. Leaching and transformation of glufosinate-ammonium and its main metabolite in a layered soil column. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:541–549.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–276.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:749–754.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E. and Al-Khatib, K. 2001. Photosynthetic inhibition and ammonium accumulation in Palmer amaranth after glufosinate application. Weed Sci. 49:454–459.Google 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. 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Brownie, C. 2003. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. 2006. Glyphosate-induced weed shifts. Weed Technol. 20:277–281.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. 54:620–626.Google 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. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. in. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall. 274–275.Google Scholar
Faber, M. J., Stephenson, G. R., and Thompson, D. G. 1997. Persistence and leachability of glufosinate-ammonium in a northern Ontario terrestrial environment. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:3672–3676.Google 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. in Camper, N.D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society. 37–38.Google Scholar
Gallina, M. A. and Stephenson, G. R. 1992. Dissipation of [14C]glufosinate-ammonium in two Ontario soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40:165–168.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York Wiley. 704 p.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2006. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: January 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to tropical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Cotton response to DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7:159–162.CrossRefGoogle 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. :21:159–165.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. 43:159–165.CrossRefGoogle 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. 17:605–619.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596–601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management with pyrithiobac preemergence in bromoxynil-resistant cotton. Weed Sci. 49:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2001. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant cotton as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.Google 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. 47:636–643.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed control with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. 1989. Transformation of the herbicide [14C]glufosinate in soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 37:267–271.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. and Belyk, M. B. 1989. Field persistence studies with the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium in Saskatchewan soils. J. Environ. Qual. 18:475–479.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. 11:484–488.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. D. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA-362622 in purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 51:13–18.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google 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. 24:55–61.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. in Ruberson, J.R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York, NY Marcel Dekker. 627–661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. in Smith, A.E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York, NY Marcel-Dekker. 343–400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Weed Management in Cotton. in. 2005 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. 74–114.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol. 20:301–307.Google Scholar