Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:39:07.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Glyphosate and MSMA Application Timing on Weed Control, Fruiting Patterns, and Yield in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael W. Edenfield ,
Barry J. Brecke ,
Daniel L. Colvin ,
Joan A. Dusky  and
Donn G. Shilling
Michael W. Edenfield*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Plant Science and Education Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The limited window of opportunity for glyphosate postemergence (POST) over-the-top applications in glyphosate-resistant cotton poses a problem for growers where a midseason salvage weed control remedy is necessary. The objectives of these experiments were to compare glyphosate and MSMA for midseason weed control and their subsequent effect on cotton fruiting characteristics and yield. Glyphosate at 0.85 kg ai/ha was more effective than MSMA at 1.7 kg ai/ha for POST control of sicklepod, redweed, and pitted morningglory. Single glyphosate treatments applied at the 8-, 10-, or 12-leaf cotton stage resulted in less-effective weed control than when applied at the four-leaf cotton stage. Glyphosate applied at the four-leaf cotton stage followed by a sequential POST-directed application at 6-, 8-, 10-, or 12-leaf cotton stage increased season-long weed control and yield compared with a single application at the four-leaf stage. Both glyphosate and MSMA controlled Florida beggarweed, regardless of POST application timing. Generally, cotton was more tolerant to glyphosate than MSMA when applied over-the-top. Glyphosate applied POST over-the-top to weed-free 12-leaf cotton resulted in a 19 and 14% yield loss compared with the weed-free nontreated cotton in 1997 and 1999. MSMA reduced yield by 58 and 36% in 1997 and 1999, respectively. Glyphosate did not affect weed-free cotton fruit development or yield when applied over-the-top to four-leaf cotton or when a POST-directed application was followed at the 12-leaf stage.

Keywords

GlyphosateMSMAFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. # DEDTOpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAredweed, Melochia corchorifolia L. # MEOCOsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. # SENOBcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Application timingcotton boll retentionsalvage weed controlPOST, postemergencePOST-directed, postemergence-directedPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 224 - 230
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Bayer CropScience, 17745 South Metcalf, Building #1, Stilwell, KS 66085-9104.

References

Literature Cited

Boone, M. Y. L., McKinion, J. M., and Willers, J. L. 1995. Baker's plant mapping technique—an alternative procedure for GOSSYM. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton conference, January 4–7, 2000, San Antonio, TX. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. Pp. 443–444.Google Scholar
Bourland, F. M. and Watson, C. E. Jr. 1990. COTMAP, a technique for evaluating structure and yield of cotton plants. Crop Sci. 30:224–226.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. 1996. Cotton weed control. in Delaplane, K., ed. Georgia Pest Control Handbook. Georgia Coop. Ext. Serv. Spec. Bull. 882. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. 30 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Cotton Foundation Ref. Book Ser. 2. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 33:270–276.Google Scholar
Constable, G. A. 1991. Mapping the production and survival of fruit on field-grown cotton. Agron. J. 83:374–378.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2:174–185. Web page: http://www.jcotsci.org. Accessed: January 2000.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:300–313.Google Scholar
Guthrie, D. S. and York, A. C. 1989. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield following fluometuron postemergence applied. Weed Technol. 3:501–504.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III., Wauchope, R. D., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1997. Response of peanut to low rates of MSMA. Weed Sci. 45:430–433.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. and Snipes, C. E. 1999. Tolerance of transgenic cotton to topical applications of glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci. 3:19–26. Web page: http://www.jcotsci.org. Accessed: January 2000.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., 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. Web page: http://www.jcotsci.org. Accessed: January 2000.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. W., Smith, W. C. Jr., and Jones, J. E. 1986. Effect of early season square removal on three leaf types of cotton. Crop Sci. 26:139–145.Google Scholar
Kletter, E. and Wallach, D. 1982. Effects of fruiting form removal on cotton reproductive development. Field Crops Res. 5:69–84.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Duke, S. O., Edmisten, K. L., and Wells, R. 2002. Tolerance and accumulation of shikimic acid in response to glyphosate applications in glyphosate-resistant and nonglyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:506–512.Google Scholar
Reddy, V. R., Baker, D. N., and Hodges, H. F. 1990. Temperature and mepiquat chloride effects on cotton canopy architecture. Agron. J. 82:190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. 6th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1994. The influence of fluometuron and MSMA on cotton yield and fruiting characteristics. Weed Sci. 42:210–215.Google Scholar
Sprenkel, R. K. 1997. Cotton Production Guidelines. Agronomy Department Document SS-AGR-62. Gainesville, FL: IFAS, University of Florida. Pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Wells, R. and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1984. Comparative growth of obsolete and modern cultivars. III. Relationship of yield to observed growth characteristics. Crop Sci. 24:868–872.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Vencill, W. K., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221–226.Google Scholar