Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T14:10:07.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of non–glufosinate-resistant cotton to reduced rates of glufosinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donnie K. Miller ,
Robert G. Downer ,
B. Roger Leonard ,
E. Merritt Holman  and
Steve T. Kelly
Robert G. Downer
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
B. Roger Leonard
Affiliation:
Macon Ridge Location of Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Winnsboro, LA 71295
E. Merritt Holman
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Steve T. Kelly
Affiliation:
Scott Research and Extension Center, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Winnsboro, LA 71295
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted for 2 yr to determine the effect of reduced rates of glufosinate on growth and yield of non–glufosinate-resistant cotton. Rates of 3.4, 6.7, 13, 26.5, 52.5, and 105 g ha−1, representing 0.008, 0.016, 0.031, 0.063, 0.125, and 0.25 of an effective use rate (420 g ha−1), were applied to cotton at the two-, five-, or nine-node growth stage. Based on analysis of visual injury, cotton response decreased as application timing was delayed in one of the three experiments. Injury response was increased slightly with application at the five- compared with the two-node growth stage and was not significant for the latest application timing (nine-node stage) in two of three experiments. In two of the three experiments, plant height reduction response was lowest at the five-node stage and greatest at the nine-node stage. Regardless of application timing, plant dry weight was negatively affected only with the highest rate of glufosinate. Glufosinate application, based on node above white flower number and percent open boll, did not result in a delay in maturity. Final plant population was reduced in all experiments at the two-node application and in one of the three experiments at the five-node stage. Glufosinate application did not adversely affect final plant population when applied to nine-node cotton. Negative effects on cotton growth were not manifested in seedcotton yield reduction after glufosinate application.

Keywords

Glufosinatecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 474’, ‘DP33B’Crop injurynontarget application
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 781 - 785
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

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2000. Carrier volume effects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:173.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, L. K., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Gannaway, J. R., Oliver, M. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 1999. Crop tolerance and weed management in glufosinate tolerant cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:5.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H., Vidrine, P. R., and Collins, R. K. 1990. Phytotoxicity of quinclorac to cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 43:117.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide resistant, and non-transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 13:411–420.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.Google 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. La. Agric 43/3:18–19.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
Miller, D. K., Pinnell-Alison, C., Williams, B. J., Kelly, S. T., and Lee, D. R. 2001. Johnsongrass resistance to graminicides in Northeast Louisiana. La. Agric 44:19–20.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Wilson, C. F., and Milligan, J. L. 1997. Cotton and Soybean Weed Control Research in Northeast Louisiana. 1997 Northeast and Macon Ridge Research Stations Annual Progress Rep. Pp. 392–393.Google Scholar
Rowland, C. D., Reynolds, D. B., and Blackley, R. H. Jr. 1999. Corn and cotton response to drift rates of non-desired herbicide application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:30.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Arnold, J. C., Snipes, C. E., Laughlin, D. H., and Mills, J. A. 2001. Comparison of glyphosate-resistant and non-transgenic soybean (Glycine max) herbicide systems. Weed Technol 15:676–685.CrossRefGoogle 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
Stalker, D. M. and McBride, K. E. 1987. Cloning and expression in Escherichia coli of a Klebsella ozaenae plasmid borne gene encoding a nitrilase specific for the herbicide bromoxynil. J. Bacteriol 169:955–960.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Derksen, D. A., and Friesen, L. F. 1995. Canola (Brassica napus) response to simulated sprayer contamination with thifensulfuron and thifensulfuron:tribenuron (2:1). Weed Technol 9:468–476.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. Pages 213–230 in Duke, S. O. ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. New York: CRC and Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar