Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:40:33.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixtures of Glyphosate with CGA 362622 for Weed Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert J. Richardson ,
Henry P. Wilson ,
Gregory R. Armel  and
Thomas E. Hines
Robert J. Richardson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Gregory R. Armel
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 to evaluate broadleaf weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton by glyphosate plus CGA 362622 applied postemergence. Treatments included 560 and 1,120 g ai/ha glyphosate-isopropylamine alone or in mixtures with CGA 362622 at 3.8 and 7.5 g ai/ha, and CGA 362622 at 7.5 g/ha alone. Cotton injury 7 d after treatment (DAT) was 3 to 11% from glyphosate alone and 16 to 24% from glyphosate plus CGA 362622. Injury 28 DAT with CGA 362622 or herbicide mixtures did not exceed 6%. Broadleaf weed control by herbicide mixtures was generally more consistent than control from either herbicide applied alone. Glyphosate plus CGA 362622 controlled common cocklebur and smooth pigweed better than glyphosate alone. In most instances, the mixtures also controlled common ragweed, common lambsquarters, ivyleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, and tall morningglory better than glyphosate applied alone. Common cocklebur and smooth pigweed were controlled at least 85% by all treatments. CGA 362622 did not control spurred anoda or jimsonweed. Cotton yields generally reflected weed control. According to these results, glyphosate plus CGA 362622 mixtures can consistently control many broadleaf weeds in cotton.

Keywords

CGA 362622 (proposed common name trifloxysulfuron sodium), N-[(4,6-dimethoxy- 2-pyrimidinyl)carbamoyl]-3-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-pyridin-2-sulfonamide sodium saltglyphosatecommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHspurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. # ANVCRtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # IPOPUcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘PM 1220 RR’, ‘PM 1218 BG/RR’, ‘SG 521 RR’Herbicide mixturesmorningglory speciesDAT, days after treatmentPOSD, postemergence directedPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 16 - 22
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. 2000. Roundup Ultra Max supplemental label for cotton with the Roundup Ready® gene in-crop applications. Monsanto Company. Web page: http://www.cdms.net/pfa/LUpdateMsg.asp.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001a. National Agricultural Statistics Service:. Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready® Cotton. Monsanto Company: Web page: http://www.monsanto.com.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
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
Brecke, B. J., Bridges, D. C., and Grey, T. 2000. CGA 362622 for postemergence weed control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:26–27.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate- resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci 2:174–185. Web page: http://jcotsci.org.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14:19–29.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. and Heckendorn, S. E. 1994. Soil Test Recommendations for Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Publication 834. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., and Monks, C. D. 2001. Evaluation of CGA-362622 for weed control in Alabama cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1210.Google Scholar
File, S. L., Reynolds, D. B., Snipes, C. E., and Serviss, B. E. 1998. Roundup Ready cotton tolerance to topical and post-directed applications of Roundup Ultra. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:47.Google Scholar
Goldmon, D. L., Guy, C., McClelland, M., and Kendig, A. 1996. Weed control systems in Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 49:1532.Google Scholar
Holloway, J. C. Jr., Wells, J. W., James, J. R., Bachman, W., Cloud, G., Minton, B., Moore, S., Porterfield, D., and Smith, H. R. 2001. The effect of CGA 362622 applications on weed control and cotton yield. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1211.Google Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:163–166.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Dotray, P. A., Osborne, T. S., and Asher, B. S. 1998. Annual and perennial weed management strategies in Roundup Ready cotton with Roundup Ultra. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:49.Google Scholar
Kendig, A. and Ohmes, A. 2001. CGA 362622 for early postemergence weed control in cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1211.Google Scholar
Nida, D. L., Kolacz, K. H., and Buehler, R. E. et al. 1996. Glyphosate-resistant cotton: genetic characterization and protein expression. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:1960–1966.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 stage of growth. Weed Sci. 49:460–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002a. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. 50. 642–647.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Edmisten, K. L. 2002b. Weed- free response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA- 362622 postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:180–183.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Swann, C. W. 2000. Nutsedge management with Roundup Ready™ (glyphosate-resistant) cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 4–8, 2000; San Antonio, TX. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1465.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Burke, I. C., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Burton, J. 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
Vencill, W. K. 1996. Weed management utilizing glyphosate resistant cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 49:1532–1533.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. and Miller, D. K. 2001. Evaluation of CGA 362622 in Louisiana cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1232.Google Scholar
Wells, J. W., Holloway, J. C. Jr., Forster, P. C., Rawls, E. K., and Dunne, C. L. 2001. CGA 362622 for weed control in cotton. in Dugger, C. P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference; January 9–13, 2001; Anaheim, CA. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. P. 1212.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., and Porterfield, D. 2000. Weed management in non-transgenic and transgenic cotton with CGA 362622. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:27.Google Scholar