Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton

Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton in 1995 and 1997. Herbicide systems evaluated included various combinations of soil-applied (trifluralin and fluometuron) and postemerg...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Weed technology 2005-04, Vol.19 (2), p.422-429
Hauptverfasser: Burke, I.C, Troxler, S.C, Askew, S.D, Wilcut, J.W, Smith, W.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 429
container_issue 2
container_start_page 422
container_title Weed technology
container_volume 19
creator Burke, I.C
Troxler, S.C
Askew, S.D
Wilcut, J.W
Smith, W.D
description Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton in 1995 and 1997. Herbicide systems evaluated included various combinations of soil-applied (trifluralin and fluometuron) and postemergence (POST) (glyphosate or pyrithiobac) herbicides with or without late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatments of cyanazine plus MSMA. Glyphosate-resistant cotton injury was less than 5% with all herbicide treatments. Glyphosate POST systems were as efficacious in weed control as other herbicide systems. Depending on location, glyphosate and pyrithiobac POST systems usually required cyanazine plus MSMA LAYBY for season-long control of common lambs-quarters, goosegrass, large crabgrass, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and Texas panicum. Glyphosate POST applied as needed provided weed control equivalent to soil-applied plus POST herbicides, although lint yield was slightly reduced depending on location. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied herbicides required one to two treatments of glyphosate POST and post-directed for season-long weed control and high cotton lint yields, whereas the same herbicide systems without soil-applied herbicides required two to three glyphosate treatments. In all herbicide systems, a residual soil-applied or LAYBY herbicide treatment increased yield compared with glyphosate POST only systems. Location influenced weed control and cotton yield. Generally, as herbicide inputs increased, yield increased.
doi_str_mv 10.1614/WT-04-182R1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1614_WT_04_182R1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3989728</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3989728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c308t-fbb48bf600f8b3b509da0eb142e421762b127a05f46bd9a8e96b1283c71ed8893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFj81LAzEQxYMoWKsnr4J78STRmSSbTY5S_IKCoC31tiS7Sd3S3S1JLv3v3bqic5iBeb95wyPkEuEOJYr71YKCoKjYOx6RCeY5UFYIOCYTUBoo8OLzlJzFuAFAyRhMiFw5V2et6czata5LWdzH5NqYNV223u53X300ydHgYhOTGfSqT6nvzsmJN9voLn7nlCyfHhezFzp_e36dPcxpxUEl6q0VynoJ4JXlNgddG3AWBXOCYSGZRVYYyL2QttZGOS2HjeJVga5WSvMpuR19q9DHGJwvd6FpTdiXCOUhcrlalCDKn8gDfTPSOxMrs_XBdFUT_0-kKlDzfOCuRm4TUx_-dK6VLobvU3I9yt70pVmHwWL5wQA54NAO9Q1nKmjE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton</title><source>BioOne Complete</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Burke, I.C ; Troxler, S.C ; Askew, S.D ; Wilcut, J.W ; Smith, W.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Burke, I.C ; Troxler, S.C ; Askew, S.D ; Wilcut, J.W ; Smith, W.D</creatorcontrib><description>Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton in 1995 and 1997. Herbicide systems evaluated included various combinations of soil-applied (trifluralin and fluometuron) and postemergence (POST) (glyphosate or pyrithiobac) herbicides with or without late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatments of cyanazine plus MSMA. Glyphosate-resistant cotton injury was less than 5% with all herbicide treatments. Glyphosate POST systems were as efficacious in weed control as other herbicide systems. Depending on location, glyphosate and pyrithiobac POST systems usually required cyanazine plus MSMA LAYBY for season-long control of common lambs-quarters, goosegrass, large crabgrass, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and Texas panicum. Glyphosate POST applied as needed provided weed control equivalent to soil-applied plus POST herbicides, although lint yield was slightly reduced depending on location. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied herbicides required one to two treatments of glyphosate POST and post-directed for season-long weed control and high cotton lint yields, whereas the same herbicide systems without soil-applied herbicides required two to three glyphosate treatments. In all herbicide systems, a residual soil-applied or LAYBY herbicide treatment increased yield compared with glyphosate POST only systems. Location influenced weed control and cotton yield. Generally, as herbicide inputs increased, yield increased.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-037X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2740</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1614/WT-04-182R1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WETEE9</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; broadleaf weeds ; Chemical control ; Cotton ; Crop economics ; Crop science ; crop yield ; fiber crops ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; glyphosate ; Gossypium hirsutum ; grass weeds ; herbicide injury ; herbicide resistance ; Herbicides ; Leaves ; Parasitic plants. Weeds ; Peanuts ; pesticide mixtures ; pesticide residues ; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection ; plant damage ; postemergent weed control ; Research methods ; Transgenic plants ; Weed control ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed technology, 2005-04, Vol.19 (2), p.422-429</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 The Weed Science Society of America</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c308t-fbb48bf600f8b3b509da0eb142e421762b127a05f46bd9a8e96b1283c71ed8893</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c308t-fbb48bf600f8b3b509da0eb142e421762b127a05f46bd9a8e96b1283c71ed8893</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3989728$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3989728$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27923,27924,58016,58249</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16871935$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Burke, I.C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Troxler, S.C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Askew, S.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilcut, J.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, W.D</creatorcontrib><title>Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton</title><title>Weed technology</title><description>Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton in 1995 and 1997. Herbicide systems evaluated included various combinations of soil-applied (trifluralin and fluometuron) and postemergence (POST) (glyphosate or pyrithiobac) herbicides with or without late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatments of cyanazine plus MSMA. Glyphosate-resistant cotton injury was less than 5% with all herbicide treatments. Glyphosate POST systems were as efficacious in weed control as other herbicide systems. Depending on location, glyphosate and pyrithiobac POST systems usually required cyanazine plus MSMA LAYBY for season-long control of common lambs-quarters, goosegrass, large crabgrass, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and Texas panicum. Glyphosate POST applied as needed provided weed control equivalent to soil-applied plus POST herbicides, although lint yield was slightly reduced depending on location. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied herbicides required one to two treatments of glyphosate POST and post-directed for season-long weed control and high cotton lint yields, whereas the same herbicide systems without soil-applied herbicides required two to three glyphosate treatments. In all herbicide systems, a residual soil-applied or LAYBY herbicide treatment increased yield compared with glyphosate POST only systems. Location influenced weed control and cotton yield. Generally, as herbicide inputs increased, yield increased.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>broadleaf weeds</subject><subject>Chemical control</subject><subject>Cotton</subject><subject>Crop economics</subject><subject>Crop science</subject><subject>crop yield</subject><subject>fiber crops</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>glyphosate</subject><subject>Gossypium hirsutum</subject><subject>grass weeds</subject><subject>herbicide injury</subject><subject>herbicide resistance</subject><subject>Herbicides</subject><subject>Leaves</subject><subject>Parasitic plants. Weeds</subject><subject>Peanuts</subject><subject>pesticide mixtures</subject><subject>pesticide residues</subject><subject>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</subject><subject>plant damage</subject><subject>postemergent weed control</subject><subject>Research methods</subject><subject>Transgenic plants</subject><subject>Weed control</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0890-037X</issn><issn>1550-2740</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFj81LAzEQxYMoWKsnr4J78STRmSSbTY5S_IKCoC31tiS7Sd3S3S1JLv3v3bqic5iBeb95wyPkEuEOJYr71YKCoKjYOx6RCeY5UFYIOCYTUBoo8OLzlJzFuAFAyRhMiFw5V2et6czata5LWdzH5NqYNV223u53X300ydHgYhOTGfSqT6nvzsmJN9voLn7nlCyfHhezFzp_e36dPcxpxUEl6q0VynoJ4JXlNgddG3AWBXOCYSGZRVYYyL2QttZGOS2HjeJVga5WSvMpuR19q9DHGJwvd6FpTdiXCOUhcrlalCDKn8gDfTPSOxMrs_XBdFUT_0-kKlDzfOCuRm4TUx_-dK6VLobvU3I9yt70pVmHwWL5wQA54NAO9Q1nKmjE</recordid><startdate>20050401</startdate><enddate>20050401</enddate><creator>Burke, I.C</creator><creator>Troxler, S.C</creator><creator>Askew, S.D</creator><creator>Wilcut, J.W</creator><creator>Smith, W.D</creator><general>Weed Science Society of America</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050401</creationdate><title>Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton</title><author>Burke, I.C ; Troxler, S.C ; Askew, S.D ; Wilcut, J.W ; Smith, W.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c308t-fbb48bf600f8b3b509da0eb142e421762b127a05f46bd9a8e96b1283c71ed8893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>broadleaf weeds</topic><topic>Chemical control</topic><topic>Cotton</topic><topic>Crop economics</topic><topic>Crop science</topic><topic>crop yield</topic><topic>fiber crops</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>glyphosate</topic><topic>Gossypium hirsutum</topic><topic>grass weeds</topic><topic>herbicide injury</topic><topic>herbicide resistance</topic><topic>Herbicides</topic><topic>Leaves</topic><topic>Parasitic plants. Weeds</topic><topic>Peanuts</topic><topic>pesticide mixtures</topic><topic>pesticide residues</topic><topic>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</topic><topic>plant damage</topic><topic>postemergent weed control</topic><topic>Research methods</topic><topic>Transgenic plants</topic><topic>Weed control</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Burke, I.C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Troxler, S.C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Askew, S.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilcut, J.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, W.D</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Burke, I.C</au><au>Troxler, S.C</au><au>Askew, S.D</au><au>Wilcut, J.W</au><au>Smith, W.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton</atitle><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle><date>2005-04-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>422</spage><epage>429</epage><pages>422-429</pages><issn>0890-037X</issn><eissn>1550-2740</eissn><coden>WETEE9</coden><abstract>Studies were conducted at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to herbicide systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton in 1995 and 1997. Herbicide systems evaluated included various combinations of soil-applied (trifluralin and fluometuron) and postemergence (POST) (glyphosate or pyrithiobac) herbicides with or without late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatments of cyanazine plus MSMA. Glyphosate-resistant cotton injury was less than 5% with all herbicide treatments. Glyphosate POST systems were as efficacious in weed control as other herbicide systems. Depending on location, glyphosate and pyrithiobac POST systems usually required cyanazine plus MSMA LAYBY for season-long control of common lambs-quarters, goosegrass, large crabgrass, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, and Texas panicum. Glyphosate POST applied as needed provided weed control equivalent to soil-applied plus POST herbicides, although lint yield was slightly reduced depending on location. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied herbicides required one to two treatments of glyphosate POST and post-directed for season-long weed control and high cotton lint yields, whereas the same herbicide systems without soil-applied herbicides required two to three glyphosate treatments. In all herbicide systems, a residual soil-applied or LAYBY herbicide treatment increased yield compared with glyphosate POST only systems. Location influenced weed control and cotton yield. Generally, as herbicide inputs increased, yield increased.</abstract><cop>Lawrence, KS</cop><pub>Weed Science Society of America</pub><doi>10.1614/WT-04-182R1</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0890-037X
ispartof Weed technology, 2005-04, Vol.19 (2), p.422-429
issn 0890-037X
1550-2740
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1614_WT_04_182R1
source BioOne Complete; JSTOR
subjects Biological and medical sciences
broadleaf weeds
Chemical control
Cotton
Crop economics
Crop science
crop yield
fiber crops
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
glyphosate
Gossypium hirsutum
grass weeds
herbicide injury
herbicide resistance
Herbicides
Leaves
Parasitic plants. Weeds
Peanuts
pesticide mixtures
pesticide residues
Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection
plant damage
postemergent weed control
Research methods
Transgenic plants
Weed control
Weeds
title Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T23%3A07%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Weed%20management%20systems%20in%20glyphosate-resistant%20cotton&rft.jtitle=Weed%20technology&rft.au=Burke,%20I.C&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=422&rft.epage=429&rft.pages=422-429&rft.issn=0890-037X&rft.eissn=1550-2740&rft.coden=WETEE9&rft_id=info:doi/10.1614/WT-04-182R1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E3989728%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3989728&rfr_iscdi=true