Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T09:18:41.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Row Spacing on Weed Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David G. Wilson Jr. ,
Alan C. York  and
David L. Jordan
David G. Wilson Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, P. O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, P. O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, P. O. Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: alan_york@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transgenic, herbicide-resistant cultivars and equipment to spindle-pick 38-cm rows has renewed interest in narrow-row cotton production. Field experiments were conducted at four locations in North Carolina during 2004 and 2005 to evaluate weed management systems in glufosinate-resistant cotton planted in 38- and 97-cm rows. Weeds included broadleaf signalgrass, goosegrass, fall panicum, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, smooth pigweed, pitted morningglory, and tall morningglory. Greater than 90% control of annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. in 2004 and Ipomoea spp. in both years was obtained in narrow-row cotton with glufosinate applied early POST (EPOST) and mid-POST (MPOST) to two- and six-leaf cotton, respectively. With good early-season control by glufosinate and rapid canopy closure, there was little benefit from pendimethalin, fluometuron, or pyrithiobac applied PRE, S-metolachlor or pyrithiobac mixed with glufosinate applied MPOST, or trifloxysulfuron applied late POST (LPOST) to 11-leaf cotton in 2004. In 2005, with larger weeds at initial application, glufosinate EPOST and MPOST did not adequately control annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. Pendimethalin PRE increased control to greater than 90% and increased yields 59 to 75%. Pendimethalin PRE followed by S-metolachlor or pyrithiobac mixed with glufosinate at MPOST was no more effective than pendimethalin alone. Without PRE herbicides, trifloxysulfuron applied LPOST increased Amaranthus but not annual grass control. Cotton row spacing had no effect on cotton yield and little effect on weed control.

Keywords

FluometuronS-metolachlorMSMApendimethalinprometrynpyrithiobactrifloxysulfuronbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash BRAPPfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. PANDIgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats. AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘FM 958LL’Herbicide-resistant cropsLiberty Link® cottonnarrow-row cotton

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 489 - 495
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous, , 2006. Ignite 280 SL herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience Web page: http://www.cdms.net/Idat/Id7AQ000.pdf.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. T., Smeda, R. J., and Johnson, W. G. 2002. Weed management programs in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:267–273.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
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Buessinger, M. J., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 14:495–501.Google Scholar
Bullen, S. G. and Brown, B. 2000. Economic evaluation of ultra narrow row cotton on a whole farm basis. Pages 287–289. in Dugger, P. and Richter, D. eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America Web page: http://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2000/abstracts/140.cfm. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Coetzer, E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2002. Glufosinate efficacy on Amaranthus species in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:326–331.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
Crooks, H. L., York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Brownie, C. 2004. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control by graminicides in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 17:373–380.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:554–559.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. and Duke, S. O. 1995. Herbicide-resistant field crops. Adv. Agron. 54:69–116.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Inhibition of amino acid biosynthesis. Pages 251–291. in Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. in Camper, N.D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. P., York, A. C., Jordan, D. L., and Monks, D. W. Management of annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. in glufosinate-resistant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 10:328–338.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Knezevic, S. Z., Chandler, K., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F. J., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:578–585.Google Scholar
Hinchee, M. A. W., Padgette, S. R., Kishore, G. M., Delannay, X., and Fraley, R. T. 1993. Herbicide-tolerant crops. Pages 243–263. in Kung, S. and Wu, R. eds. Transgenic Plants. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Hock, S. M., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Sci. 54:38–46.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A. and Hoverstad, T. R. 2002. Effect of row spacing and herbicide application timing on weed control and grain yield in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:548–553.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Improving the management of dicot weeds in peanut with narrow row spacings and reduced herbicides. Agron. J. 97:85–88.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A., Chandler, J. M., Morrison, J. E. Jr, Senseman, S. A., and Tingle, C. H. 2001. Glufosinate combinations and row spacing for weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:141–147.Google Scholar
Karnei, J. R. 2005. The agronomics and economics of 15-inch cotton. in Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 601. Web page: http://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005/pdfs/2792.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Hamm, G. S., Collins, G. D., Bullins, N. G., Gardner, A. P., York, A. C., Wilson, D. G. Jr, and Edmisten, K. L. 2005. Adapting a two-row John Deere 9910 to harvest 15-inch cotton for small plot research. in Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America. 2003. Web page: http://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005/pdfs/2353.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Leuschen, W. E., Ford, J. H., Evans, S. D., Kanne, B. K., Hoverstad, T. R., Randall, G. W., Orf, J. H., and Hicks, D. R. 1992. Tillage, row spacing, and planting date effects on soybean following corn and wheat. J. Prod. Agric. 5:254–260.Google Scholar
McAllister, D. D. III and Rogers, C. D. 2005. The effect of harvesting procedures on fiber and yarn quality of ultra-narrow-row cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 9:15–23. Webpage: http://www.cotton.org/journal/2005-09/1/upload/jcs09-015.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Jones, M. A., Toler, J. E., and Graham, R. F. 2003. South Carolina results: weed control in glufosinate-tolerant cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:8.Google Scholar
Nichols, S. P., Snipes, C. E., and Jones, M. A. 2004. Cotton growth, lint yield, and fiber quality as affected by row spacing and cultivar. J. Cotton Sci. 8:1–12. Webpage: http://cotton.org/journal/2004-08/1/upload/jcs08-001.pdf. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Norris, J. L., Shaw, D. R., and Snipes, C. E. 2002. Influence of row spacing and residual herbicides on weed control in glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:319–325.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci. 52:802–807.Google Scholar
Parvin, D. W. Jr, Cooke, F. T., and Molin, W. T. 2000. Commercial ultra-narrow row cotton production, Mississippi, 1999. Pages 433–436. in Dugger, C.P. and Richter, D.A. eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America Web page: http://www.cotton.org./beltwide/proceedings/abstracts/189.cfm. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Sasser, P. E. 1981. The basics of high volume instruments for fiber testing. Pages 191–193. in Brown, J.M. ed. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246. in. Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International Cary. NC SAS.Google Scholar
Steckel, G. J., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Phillips, W. H. II. 1997. Glufosinate efficacy on annual weeds is influenced by rate and growth stage. Weed Technol. 11:484–488.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 229–230.Google Scholar
Vories, E. D., Valco, T. D., Bryant, K. J., and Glover, R. E. 2001. Three-year comparison of conventional and ultra narrow cotton production systems. Appl. Eng. Agric. 17:583–589.Google Scholar
Wendler, C. M., Barniske, M., and Wild, A. 1990. Effect of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and photorespiration of C3 and C4 plants. Photosynth. Res. 24:55–61.Google Scholar
Wiatrak, P. J., Wright, D. L., Pudelko, J. A., Kidd, B., and Koziara, W. 1998. Conventional vs. ultra-narrow row (UNR) cotton in different tillage systems. Pages 92–94. in Keisling, T.C. ed. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture., AR Arkansas Agric. Expt. Stn, Spec. Rept. 186.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:122–128.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. G. Jr 2006. Evaluation of Weed Management and the Agronomic Utility of Cotton Grown on a 15-Inch Row Configuration. Ph.D. dissertation. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 148.Google Scholar
Wright, D. L., Marois, J. J., Wiatrak, P. J., Sprenkel, R. J., Tredway, J. A., Rich, J. R., and Rhoades, F. M. 2000. Production of Ultra Narrow Row Cotton. Publ. SS-AGR-83. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:169–174.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 2004. Weed management in Liberty Link and Roundup Ready Flex cotton. in Richter, D.A., ed. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Memphis, TN National Cotton Council of America Web page: http://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2004/abstracts/M053.cfm. Accessed: April 11, 2006.Google Scholar