Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:47:11.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton cultivar response to glufosinate plus S-metolachlor applied postemergence using two nozzle types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2022

Wykle C. Greene Open the ORCID record for Wykle C. Greene [Opens in a new window] ,
Joyce A. Tredaway Open the ORCID record for Joyce A. Tredaway [Opens in a new window] ,
Andrew J. Price  and
Dale Monks Open the ORCID record for Dale Monks [Opens in a new window]
Wykle C. Greene*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Joyce A. Tredaway
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Plant Physiologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL, USA
Dale Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Wykle C. Greene, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn, AL36849 Email: wykle@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Alabama in 2016 and 2017 to determine the effect of postemergence applications of glufosinate alone and glufosinate applied with S-metolachlor, using two different nozzle types, on LibertyLink®, XtendFlex®, and WideStrike® cotton growth and yield. Two applications of glufosinate at 0.6 kg ha−1, and glufosinate with S-metolachlor at 1.39 kg ha−1 were applied to each cotton cultivar at the four-leaf and eight-leaf growth stages using a flatfan and Turbo TeeJet Induction® nozzle. Visual estimates of cotton injury were evaluated after each application, as well as yield. No differences in yield within each cotton cultivar were observed for either year. Visible injury was higher for WideStrike cotton than LibertyLink or XtendFlex cultivars. On average, glufosinate applied with S-metolachlor resulted in greater injury than glufosinate applied alone. In LibertyLink cotton, applications made with TTI nozzles resulted in greater injury than flatfan nozzles. However, cotton injury was transient and did not affect cotton yields. These data indicate that applications of glufosinate and glufosinate applied with S-metolachlor, at 0.6 kg ha−1 and 1.39 kg ha−1, respectively, with either a flatfan or TTI nozzle, can have no detrimental effect on cotton growth or yield.

Keywords

GlufosinateS-metolachlorcottonGossypium hirsutum L.cottoncrop injurynozzleflatfanTurbo TeeJet Induction
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 1023 - 1028
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Lawrence E. Steckel, University of Tennessee

References

Anonymous (2017) Liberty herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer Crop Science. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldUA5013.pdf. Accessed: February 7, 2022Google Scholar
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 10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0512:EAOWMF]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, KA, Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer maranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control by glufosinate plus fluometuron applied postemergence to WideStrike® cotton. Weed Technol 27:291–297 10.1614/WT-D-12-00158.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, KA, Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Steckel, LE (2015) Evaluation of WideStrike cotton response to repeated applications of glufosinate at various application timings. Weed Technol 29:154–160 10.1614/WT-D-14-00021.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–118810.1126/science.1141596CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyers, JT, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG (2002) Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 16:267–273 10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0267:WMPIGR]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair-Kerth, LK, Dotray, PA, Keeling, JW, Gannaway, JR, Oliver, MJ, Quisenberry, JE (2001) Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate. Weed Sci 49:375–380 10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0375:TOTCTG]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–16910.1614/WT-D-10-00047.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Walker, TW, Ottis, BV, Harrell, DL (2008) Rice seeding and nitrogen rate effects on yield and yield components of two rice cultivars. Agron J 100:393–39710.2134/agronj2007.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouse, LF, Kirk, IW, Bode, LE (1990) Effect of spray mixture on droplet size. Trans ASAE 33:0783–078810.13031/2013.31401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byker, HP, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Tardif, FJ, Lawton, MB, Sikkema, PH (2013) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with dicamba applied preplant and postemergence in dicamba-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 27:492–49610.1614/WT-D-13-00023.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Culpepper, AS, Eure, PM (2015) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) management in dicamba-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 29:758–77010.1614/WT-D-15-00041.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:66510.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040021xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
CERA (2015) Global GM crop database regulatory approvals CERA Agbios. http://www.cera-gmc.org/GmCropDatabaseEvent/LLCotton25. Accessed: March 21, 2017Google Scholar
Clewis, SB, Wilcut, JW, Porterfield, D (2006) Weed Management with S-Metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Weed Technol 20:23210.1614/WT-05-030R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, JL, Askew, SD, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2004) Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol 18:443–453 10.1614/WT-03-139RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2013) The R Book. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: WileyGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1998) Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J Cotton Sci 2:174–185Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1999a) Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:411–42010.1017/S0890037X00041956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (1999b) Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 13:324–33310.1017/S0890037X00041816CrossRefGoogle 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 54:620–62610.1614/WS-06-001R.1CrossRefGoogle 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 23:356–36210.1614/WT-08-168.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M, Duke, S, Fedtke, C, eds (1993) Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp 274–275Google Scholar
Dodds, DM, Main, CL, Thomas Barber, L, Burmester, C, Collins, GD, Edmisten, K, Stephenson, DO IV, Whitaker, JR, Boykin, DL (2015) Response of LibertyLink and WideStrike Cotton to varying rates of glufosinate. Weed Technol 29:665–67410.1614/WT-D-15-00012.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, DM, Reynolds, DB, Huff, JA, Irby, JT (2010) Effect of pendimethalin formulation and application rate on cotton fruit partitioning. Weed Technol 24:77–8410.1614/WT-09-049.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Hart, WE, Hayes, RM, Mueller, TC (2001) Effect of Venturi-type nozzles and application volume on postemergence herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 15:75–8010.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0075:EOVTNA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Womac, AR, Mueller, TC (1999) Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns of four Venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. Weed Technol 13:765–77010.1017/S0890037X00042202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, TW, Poston, DH, Nandula, VK, Koger, CH, Shaw, DR, Reynolds, DB (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control using glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs. Weed Technol 22:16–2110.1614/WT-07-038.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–50610.1614/WT-08-061.1CrossRefGoogle 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 21:695–70110.1614/WT-06-164.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, JC, Hewitt, AJ, O’Donnell, CC, Kruger, GR (2020) Comparison of water-sensitive paper, Kromekote and Mylar collectors for droplet deposition with a visible fluorescent dye solution. J Plant Prot Res 60:98–105 doi: 10.24425/jppr.2020.132210Google 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 Sci SocGoogle Scholar
Gardner, AP, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Monks, DW (2006) Management of annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. in glufosinate-resistant cotton. J Cotton Sci 10:328–338Google Scholar
Geier, PW, Stahlman, PW, Frihauf, JC (2006) KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no-tillage corn. Weed Technol 20:622–62610.1614/WT-05-048R2.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, S, Hans-Peter, P, Selzer, L, Doraj-Raj, S (2015). MultcompView: visualizations of paired comparisons. R package version 0.1-7. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=multcompViewGoogle Scholar
Hérouet, C, Esdaile, DJ, Mallyon, BA, Debruyne, E, Schulz, A, Currier, T, Hendrickx, 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. Regulatory Toxicol Pharmacol 2:134–149 10.1016/j.yrtph.2004.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications [ISAAA] (2015) MON88701––GM Approval Database | ISAAA.org.http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=343. Accessed: December 6, 2017Google Scholar
Jenkins, J, McCarty, J (1995) Useful Tools in Managing Cotton Production: End of Season Plant Maps. Bulletin 1024. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Station. Accessed: November 16, 2016Google Scholar
Joseph, DD, Marshall, MW, Sanders, CH, Joseph, DD (2012) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa L.) control in dicamba tolerant soybean (Glycine max L.). Am J Plant Sci 8:3429–344210.4236/ajps.2017.813230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–17810.1016/0261-2194(94)90075-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marten, GC, Jordan, RM (1979) Substitution value of birdsfoot trefoil for alfalfa-grass in pasture systems. Agron J 71:55–5910.2134/agronj1979.00021962007100010013xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, KS, Brandt, SA, Morse, P, Ashford, R (1972) Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci 20:450–45210.1017/S0043174500036110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithila, J, Hall, JC, Johnson, WG, Kelley, KB, Riechers, DE (2011) Evolution of resistance to auxinic herbicides: historical perspectives, mechanisms of resistance, and implications for broadleaf weed management in agronomic crops. Weed Sci 59:445–45710.1614/WS-D-11-00062.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, GB, Treadway, JA, Reeves, JL, Steckel, LE (2017) Effect of time of day of application of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, paraquat, and saflufenacil on horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control. Weed Technol 31:550–55610.1017/wet.2017.34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, TC, Womac, AR (1997) Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol 11:639–64310.1017/S0890037X00043177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OECD] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002) 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 [Online]. Consens Doc Biol Triticum aestivum (Bread Wheat) Consens Doc Biol Oryza sativa Consens Doc Biol Popul L 212:1–7. https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/biotrack/46815748.pdf Google Scholar
Ottis, B V, Barr, JHO, Mccauley, GN, Chandler, JM (2004) Imazethapyr is safe and effective for imidazolinone-tolerant rice grown on coarse-textured soils. Weed Technol 18:1096–1100 10.1614/WT-03-257R1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing Google Scholar
Senseman, S (2007) Herbicide Handbook. 9th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 13 p Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Craig, CC, Hayes, RM (2006) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control with glufosinate prior to planting no-till cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 20:1047–1051 10.1614/WT-05-183.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Main, CL, Ellis, AT, Mueller, TC (2008) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Tennessee has low level glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol 22:119–123 10.1614/WT-07-061.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Stephenson, D, Bond, J, Stewart, SD, Barnett, KA, Steckel, LE, Barnett, KA (2012) Evaluation of WideStrike® Flex cotton response to over-the-top glufosinate tank mixtures. J Cotton Sci 16:88–95 Google Scholar
Steele, GL, Porpiglia, PJ, Chandler, JM (2005) Efficacy of KIH-485 on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and selected broadleaf weeds in corn. Weed Technol 19:866–869 10.1614/WT-04-229R1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, S, Evans, R, Singh, B (2006) Herbicidal inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis and herbicide-tolerant crops. Amino Acids 30:195–204 10.1007/s00726-005-0254-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, WA, Womac, AR, Miller, PCH, Taylor, BP (2004) An attempt to relate drop size to drift risk. Pages 210–223 in Proceedings of the International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management, October 27–29, Pullman, WA: Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Tredaway, J (2017) Cotton: Insect, Disease, Nematode, and Weed Control Recommendations for 2018. Alabama Cooperative Extension System, IPM-0415. 49 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] U.S. Department of Agriculture––Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015) Determination of nonregulated status for Monsanto Company MON 88701 cotton.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 3 p. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/12_18501p_det.pdf. Accessed: March 1, 2015Google Scholar
Vann, RA, York, AC, Cahoon, CW, Buck, TB, Askew, MC, Seagroves, RW (2017) Glufosinate plus dicamba for rescue palmer amaranth control in XtendFlexTM Cotton. Weed Technol 31:666–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, TW, Martin, SW, Gerard, PD (2006) Grain yield and milling quality response of two rice cultivars to top-dress nitrogen application timings. Agron J 98:1495–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whisenant, SG, Bouse, LF, Crane, RA, Bovey, RW (1993) Society for Range Management droplet size and spray volume effects on honey mesquite mortality with clopyralid. J Range Manag 46:257–26110.2307/4002618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011a) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. Weed Technol 25:183–19110.1614/WT-D-10-00008.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM (2011b) Residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control. J Cotton Sci 15:89–99Google Scholar
Yates, WE, Cowden, RE, Akesson, NB (1985) Drop size spectra from nozzles in high-speed airstreams. Trans ASAE 28:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Leon, CT (2005) Response of rice cultivars to V-10029. Weed Technol 19:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar