Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:07:11.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Three Nonglufosinate-Resistant Cotton Varieties to Reduced Rates of Glufosinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
C. Chism Craig ,
Robert M. Hayes  and
Donnie K. Miller
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Blvd., Jackson, TN 38301
C. Chism Craig
Affiliation:
Monsanto Company, Box 388, Stoneville, MS 38776
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Blvd., Jackson, TN 38301
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
LSU Northeast Research Station, LSU AgCenter, St. Joseph, LA 71366
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate the effects of reduced rates of glufosinate on development and yield of three nonglufosinate-resistant cotton varieties. The varieties evaluated were selected on their relative maturity with PayMaster (PM) 1218, early maturity; FiberMax (FM) 960, medium maturity; and Delta and Pine Land (DP) 555, late maturity. Rates of 47, 23, and 4.7 g ai/ha were applied, representing 10, 5, and 1% of the typical use rate per application of 467 g ai/ha, respectively. As might be expected, when averaged over varieties, the 10% rate showed more injury than the 5%, and the 5% rate caused more visual injury than the 1% rate. Pooled over timing and rate, PM1218 showed more injury (18%) than FM960 (7%), which showed more injury than DP555 (1%) 7 days after application (DAA) at the 10% rate. However, although PM1218 showed the most visual injury, this did not translate into delay in maturity or loss of lint yield. DP555 showed 70 kg ai/ha and 50 kg ai/ha lint yield loss when glufosinate was applied at the 10% rate on the fifth and eighth node stage, respectively. DP555 was delayed in maturity when glufosinate was applied at the 10% rate on the eighth node stage. FM960 showed 30 kg/ha lint yield loss when glufosinate was applied at the 10 and 5% rates at the fifth node stage. Maturity of FM960 was delayed with the 10 and 5% rates applied at the fifth node stage.

Keywords

Glufosinate, cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., ‘Delta & Pine Land’ (DP555), ‘FiberMax’ (FM960), ‘PayMaster’ (PM1218)Maturity delaydrifttank contaminationvarietiescrop safety
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 780 - 784
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 2004. Bayer: Ignite Herbicide Application User's Guide. http://www.bayercropwest.com/file:District-Literature/11170432703202040a02022117435999/doc. Accessed: April 4, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005a. Cotton Incorporated: Most Popular Varieties for 2005. http://cottoninc.com/cropqualitysummary/cropqualitysummaryweekly/mostpopularvarietiesfor2005.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005b. USDA: Cotton Varieties Planted 2005 Crop. http://www.ams.usda.gov/cottonrpts/mnpdf/mf_cn833.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006. Ignite Herbicide Label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld6ER002.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2006.Google 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.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol. 18:443–453.Google Scholar
Craig, C. C., Gwathmey, C. O., and Allen, F. L. 2005. Tennessee cotton variety test results in 2005. PB1742:21.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H., Vidrine, P. R., and Collins, R. K. 1990. Phytotoxicity of quinclorac to cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Abstr. 43:117.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glyphosate tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:174–185.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., Linscombe, S. D., and Webster, E. P. 2000. Crop response to simulated drift of Roundup Ultra and Liberty Herbicides. Louisiana Agric. 43/3:18–19.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control with non-selective herbicides. Weed Technol. 5:884–886.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Downer, R. G., Burris, E., Leonard, B. R., and Williams, B. J. 2005. Control of selected broadleaf weeds with glufosinate as influenced by insecticide co-application. Weed Technol. 19:719–723.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Downer, R. G., Leonard, B. R., Holman, E. M., and Kelley, S. T. 2003. Response of nonglufosinate-resistant cotton to reduced rates of glufosinate. Weed Sci. 52:781–785.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Downer, R. G., Leonard, B. R., Holman, E. M., and Kelley, S. T. 2004. Response of nonglyphosate-resistant cotton in reduced rates of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 52:178–182.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, , 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute NC. Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Rajcan, I., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. An integrated weed management strategy for glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed. Technol. 15:517–522.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40:106–109.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Brown, B., Craig, C. C., Hayes, R. M., Mueller, T. C., Rhodes, G. N., Sims, B. D., and Thompson, M. A. 2005. 2005 Weed Control Manual for Tennessee Crops. PB1580:32.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. 2005. UTcrops.com, Weeds. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/fieldCrops/cotton/index.htm. Accessed February 27, 2005.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. 2001. Effect of glufosinate-tolerant corn (Zea mays) population and row spacing on light interception, corn yield, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) growth. Weed. Technol. 15:413–418.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 glufosiante-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 18:258–262.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. 1985. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224, paraquat, and glyphosate in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 33:531–536.Google Scholar