Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton

被引:23
作者
Burke, IC
Troxler, SC
Askew, SD
Wilcut, JW
Smith, WD
机构
[1] N Carolina State Univ, Dept Crop Sci, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[2] Glade Rd Res Facil, Dept Plant Pathol Physiol & Weed Sci, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
关键词
CHEAL; DIGSA; ELEIN; herbicide-resistant crops; IPOLA; PANTE; SIDSP;
D O I
10.1614/WT-04-182R1
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:422 / 429
页数:8
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]   Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) [J].
Askew, SD ;
Wilcut, JW .
WEED TECHNOLOGY, 1999, 13 (02) :308-313
[2]  
Askew SD, 2002, WEED SCI, V50, P512, DOI 10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0512:EAOWMF]2.0.CO
[3]  
2
[4]   Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase [J].
Baerson, SR ;
Rodriguez, DJ ;
Tran, M ;
Feng, YM ;
Biest, NA ;
Dill, GM .
PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 2002, 129 (03) :1265-1275
[5]  
Bailey WA, 2003, WEED TECHNOL, V17, P117, DOI 10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0117:WMFQAN]2.0.CO
[6]  
2
[7]   INFLUENCE OF WEED COMPETITION ON COTTON [J].
BUCHANAN, GA ;
BURNS, ER .
WEED SCIENCE, 1970, 18 (01) :149-&
[8]   Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac [J].
Burke, IC ;
Wilcut, JW .
WEED TECHNOLOGY, 2004, 18 (02) :268-276
[9]  
Chachalis D, 2001, WEED SCI, V49, P628, DOI 10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0628:HELSAS]2.0.CO
[10]  
2