Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:57:12.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response and Weed Management with Trifloxysulfuron, Glyphosate, Prometryn, and MSMA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Walter E. Thomas ,
Tim T. Britton ,
Scott B. Clewis ,
Shawn D. Askew  and
John W. Wilcut
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Tim T. Britton
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Scott B. Clewis
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0330
John W. Wilcut*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: john_wilcut@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at three locations to evaluate glyphosate-resistant (GR) cotton response, weed control, and cotton lint yields to two formulations of glyphosate (diammonium salt– glyphosate and isopropylamine salt–glyphosate) and trifloxysulfuron applied early postemergence (EPOST) alone or to tank mixtures of trifloxysulfuron with each glyphosate formulation, with and without a late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatment of prometryn plus MSMA. Trifloxysulfuron and both formulations of glyphosate controlled common lambsquarters and pitted morningglory. Both glyphosate formulations provided equivalent control of common lambsquarters, goosegrass, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and smooth pigweed. Trifloxysulfuron controlled smooth pigweed better than either glyphosate formulation but did not control goosegrass or prickly sida. Prometryn plus MSMA LAYBY improved late-season control of common lambsquarters, goosegrass, large crabgrass, and pitted morningglory for all EPOST systems and improved late-season smooth pigweed control for EPOST systems that did not include trifloxysulfuron. Cotton injury was 2% or less from both glyphosate formulations, while trifloxysulfuron injured ‘Deltapine 5415RR’ 7 to 16% at two locations. At a third location, trifloxysulfuron injured ‘Paymaster 1218RR/BG’ 24%, and when applied in mixture with either glyphosate formulation, injury increased to at least 72%. Cotton injury was transient at the first two locations and was not visually apparent 3 to 5 wk later. Cotton yield at the third location was reduced. High cotton yields reflected high levels of weed control.

Keywords

GlyphosateMSMAprometryntrifloxysulfuroncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album (L.) Roth #3 CHEALgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa Gray # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 1218RR/BG’, ‘Deltapine 5415RR’Diammonium saltisopropylamine saltDIA, diammonium salt of glyphosateIPA, isopropylamine salt of glyphosatePOT, postemergence over the top
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 6 - 13
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. 2004a. Cotton Varieties Planted, United States 2004 Crop. United States Department of Agriculture: Web page: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cottonrpts/MNPDF/mp_cn833.PDF. Accessed: January 20, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004b. Envoke label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004c. Cyanazine; Notice of Final Determination to Terminate Special Review of Cyanazine; Notice of Voluntary Cancellation and Cancellation Order of Cyanazine Product Registrations. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Federal Register Environmental Documents: Web page: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1996/July/Day-25/pr-812.html. Accessed: July 21, 2004.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Scott, G. H., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied CGA 362622 in cotton, peanut, and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 50:293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., and Hayes, R. M. 2003. Weed management, fiber quality, and net returns in no-tillage transgenic and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair-Kerth, L. K., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Gannaway, J. R., Oliver, M. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 2001. Tolerance of transformed cotton to glufosinate. Weed Sci. 49:375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branson, J. W., Smith, K. L., Barrentine, J. L., and Namenek, R. C. 2002. Cotton phytotoxicity with trifloxysulfuron as influenced by soil moisture, temperature, and tankmixes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:29.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2002. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16:749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 2000. Report of the 1999 Cotton Weed Loss Committee. 2000 Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. Vol. 2:1455–1458.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. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.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. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doss, L. G. 1995. Interaction of glyphosate and acetolactate synthase-inhibitor herbicides and evaluation of weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). M.S. thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 175 p.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. p. 37.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Toxicity and environmental properties of glyphosate. in Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Am. Chem. Soc. Monograph 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. Pp. 103–137.Google Scholar
Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., and Batts, R. B. 1998. Annual grass control by glyphosate plus bentazon, chlorimuron, fomesafen, or imazethapyr mixtures. Weed Technol. 12:134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, M. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Environment affects cotton and velvetleaf response to pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. 44:241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, K. M., Culpepper, A. S., and York, A. C. 1999. Cotton response to temperature and pyrithiobac. J. Cotton Sci. 3:132–138.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical application of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishomoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45:426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596–601.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 Gossypium hirsutum as influenced by application method and growth stage. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pline, W. A., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J., and Wells, R. 2002. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Wells, J. W., and Clewis, S. B. 2003. Weed management with CGA-362622 in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 51:1002–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004a. Influence of adjuvants on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to postemergence applications of CGA 362622. Weed Technol. 18:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004b. Mixtures of glyphosate with CGA 362622 for weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 8.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Steele, G. L. and Chandler, J. M. 2002. Cotton response to applications of Touchdown IQ and CGA 362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:170.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Wells, R., Viator, R. P., and Paulsgrove, M. D. 2004. Glufosinate does not affect floral morphology and pollen viability in glufosinate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 18:258–262.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. 16:838–844.CrossRefGoogle 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: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 627–661.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. in Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. Pp. 213–230.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: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2001. Weed management in cotton. in Edmisten, K. E., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 73–119.Google Scholar