Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:52:52.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management with S-Metolachlor and Glyphosate Mixtures in Glyphosate-Resistant Strip- and Conventional-Tillage Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis ,
John W. Wilcut  and
Dunk Porterfield
Scott B. Clewis*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Dunk Porterfield
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection, Cary, NC 27502
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: scott_clewis@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five studies were conducted at Clayton, Rocky Mount, and Lewiston-Woodville, NC, in 2001 and 2002, to evaluate weed management, crop tolerance, and yield in strip- and conventional-tillage glyphosate-resistant cotton. Cotton was treated with two glyphosate formulations; glyphosate-IP (isopropylamine salt) or glyphosate-TM (trimethylsulfonium salt), early postemergence (EPOST) alone or in a mixture with S-metolachlor. Early season cotton injury was minimal (3%) with either glyphosate formulation alone or in mixture with S-metolachlor. Weed control and cotton yields were similar for both glyphosate formulations. The addition of S-metolachlor to either glyphosate formulation increased control of broadleaf signalgrass, goosegrass, large crabgrass, and yellow foxtail 14 to 43 percentage points compared with control by glyphosate alone. S-metolachlor was not beneficial for late-season control of entireleaf morningglory, jimsonweed, pitted morningglory, or yellow nutsedge. The addition of S-metolachlor to either glyphosate formulation increased control of common lambsquarters, common ragweed, Palmer amaranth, smooth pigweed, and velvetleaf 6 to 46 percentage points. The addition of a late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatment of prometryn plus MSMA increased control to greater than 95% for all weed species regardless of EPOST treatment, and control was similar with or without S-metolachlor EPOST. Cotton lint yield was increased 220 kg/ha with the addition of S-metolachlor to either glyphosate formulation compared with yield from glyphosate alone. The addition of the LAYBY treatment increased yields 250 and 380 kg/ha for glyphosate plus S-metolachlor and glyphosate systems, respectively. S-metolachlor residual activity allowed for an extended window for more effective LAYBY application to smaller weed seedlings instead of weeds that were possibly larger and harder to control.

Keywords

Glyphosate-IP (isopropylamine salt)glyphosate-TM (trimethylsulfonium salt)S-metolachlorMSMAprometrynbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash. #3 BRAPPcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray. # IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. # SETLUyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPEScotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Economic returnsherbicide-resistant cropstillage systemsfb, followed byPDS, postemergence-directedPREBAN, pre-emergence-banded
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 232 - 241
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. 1998. Summary of Annual Ownership Costs, Performance Rates, and Hourly Operation Costs by Machines, 1998 Field Crop Budgets. Raleigh, NC: Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University. Pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Core 4—Conservation for Agriculture's Future. Web page:http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/CT/CT.html. Accessed: July 2, 2003.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and non-tilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.Google 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.Google Scholar
Baerson, S. R., Rodriguez, D. J., and Tran, M. 2002. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. Plant Physiol. 129:1265–1275.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Askew, S. D., Dorai-Raj, S., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed production dynamics in cotton. Weed Sci. 51:94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 2002. Variety selection. in 2002 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. Pp. 24–42.Google Scholar
Bradley, J. F. 1995. Success with no-till cotton. in McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experimental Station. Pp. 31–38.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 2003. Cotton: Estimated Revenue, Operating Expenses, Annual Ownership Costs, and Net Revenue Per Acre. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics Budget 76-1. P. 3.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Spears, J. F., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Influence of environmental factors on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) germination. Weed Sci. 51:683–689.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
Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr., and Burn, T. M. 1982. Management of broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:40–44.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 49:768–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Porterfield, D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Bromoxynil, prometryn, pyrithiobac, and MSMA weed management systems for bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:174–185.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.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 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
Edmisten, K. L. 2005. Cotton Classification. in 2005 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. Pp. 191–197.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L., York, A. C., Yelverton, F. H., Spears, J. F., and Bowman, D. T. 2003. Weed Management in Cotton. in 2003 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. Pp. 74–114.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. 2001. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:544–551.CrossRefGoogle 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. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Brewer, K. D., and Minton, B. W. 2004. Using soil-applied herbicides in combination with glyphosate in a glyphosate-resistant cotton herbicide program. Crop Prot. 23:1007–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. 2005. The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Web page: www.weedscience.com. Accessed: April 4, 2004.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Transgenic cotton tolerance to topical glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 1:19–26.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1992. MSMA effect on postemergence cotton herbicides. Ark. Farm Res. 41 (6):6–7.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., McClelland, M. R., and Kendig, J. A. 1993. Effect of MSMA on entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) control with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1997. Monosodium methanearsonate influence on broadleaf weed control with selected postemergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci. 1:72–75.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A. and Retzinger, E. J. 2003. Revised classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 17:605–617.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45:426–429.Google 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.Google 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., Viator, R., Wilcut, J. W., Edmisten, K. L., Thomas, J. F., and Wells, R. 2002b. Reproductive abnormalities in glyphosate-resistant cotton caused by lower CP4-EPSPS levels in the male reproductive tissue. Weed Sci. 50:438–447.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002a. Accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications to glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J. Ag. Food Chem. 50:506–512.Google 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.Google Scholar
Poston, G. S., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1993. Postemergence control of cow pea (Vigna unquiculata) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 7:478–482.Google Scholar
Price, A. J. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) response to neighboring green corn (Zea Mays) and different colored physical structures. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:123–125.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Flumioxazin preplant burndown weed management in strip-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) planted into wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 16:762–767.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Pollard, J. M., and Smeda, R. J. 2005. Two common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) biotypes differ in biology and response to glyphosate. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 45:47.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M., Burke, I. C., Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, C. M., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Interference and seed rain dynamics of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri L.) in peanut. Am. Peanut Res. Ed. Soc. In press.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Glyphosate systems for weed control in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 16:191–198.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Brownie, C. 2000. Datura stramonium interference and seed rain in Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 48:613–617.Google Scholar
Scott, R. C., Dillon, T. W., Meins, K. B., and Oliver, L. R. 2005. Investigation of a population of common ragweed suspected of glyphosate resistance. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:15.Google Scholar
Sholar, J. R., Mozingo, R. W., and Beasley, J. P. Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. in Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Educational Society, Inc. Pp. 354–382.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and chemical weed-control systems. Weed Sci. 40:249–254.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 1999. Influence of herbicide application rate, timing, and interrow cultivation on weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield in glufosinate-resistant and glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol. 13:807–813.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., McDowell, L. L., and Hagen, L. J. 1985. Environmental effects of limited tillage. in Weise, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 266–281.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: CRC Press. Pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Hayes, R. M., Nichols, R. L., Clewis, S. B., Summerlin, J., Miller, D. K., Kendig, A., Chandler, J. M., Bridges, D. C., Brecke, B., Snipes, C. E., and Brown, S. M. 2003. Weed Management in Transgenic Cotton. North Carolina State University Technical Bulletin 319:1–4.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management programs for oil seed crops. in Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Programs. New York: Marcel-Dekker. Pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
Wood, M. L., Murray, D. S., Westerman, R. B., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1999. Full-season interference of Ipomoea hederacea with Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:693–696.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2003. Weed Management in Cotton. in 2003 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University. Pp. 73–119.Google Scholar