Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T13:29:00.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glufosinate-Resistant Corn Interference in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott B. Clewis,
Walter E. Thomas,
Wesley J. Everman and
John W. Wilcut
Scott B. Clewis*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Walter E. Thomas
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Campus Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: scott_clewis@ncsu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted at three locations in North Carolina in 2004 to evaluate density-dependent effects of glufosinate-resistant (GUR) corn on GUR cotton growth and lint yield. GUR corn was taller than GUR cotton as early as 11 d after planting, depending on location. A GUR corn density of 5.25 plant/m of crop row reduced late-season cotton height by 38, 43, and 43% at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, NC, respectively, compared with weed-free cotton height. GUR corn dry biomass per meter of crop row and GUR corn seed biomass per meter of crop row decreased linearly with increasing GUR corn density at all locations. The relationship between GUR corn density and GUR cotton yield loss was described by the rectangular hyperbola model with the asymptote (a) constrained to 100% maximum yield loss. The estimated coefficient i (yield loss per unit density as density approaches zero) was 7, 5, and 6 at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, respectively. Percentage of GUR cotton lint yield loss increased 4, 5, and 8 percentage points at Clayton, Lewiston-Woodville, and Rocky Mount, respectively, with each 500 g increase in weed biomass/m of crop row. The examined GUR corn densities had a significant effect on cotton yield but not as significant as many other problematic grass and broadleaf weeds.

Keywords

Glufosinate, corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 34A55LL’ ZEAMX, cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., ‘FM 958LL’Competitioneconomic thresholdmodelsweed biomassweed densityplant height

Information

Type
Weed Management — Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2008, pp. 211 - 216
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, , 2003a. Prowl® H2O product label. Florham Park, NJ BASF Corporation. 1–18.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2003b. Liberty® product label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience. 1–6.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2004. Ignite® product label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience. 1–12.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and non-tilled systems. Weed Sci. 50:512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Tropic croton interference in cotton. Weed Sci. 49:184–189.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002a. Ladysthumb interference and seed production in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:326–332.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002b. Pennsylvania smartweed interference and achene production in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:350–356.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002c. Pale smartweed interference and achene production in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacheler, J. S. 2007. Managing insects on cotton. Pages 136–160. in Edmisten, K. L., editor. 2007 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-417.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Askew, S. D., Dorai-Raj, S., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed production dynamics in cotton. Weed Sci. 51:94–101.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1987. Influence of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density and period of competition on cotton yield. Weed Sci. 35:63–67.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 2007. Variety selection. Pages 27–37. in Edmisten, K. L., editor. 2007 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperation Extension Publication AG-417.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1992. Interference of weeds with cotton. Pages 73–85. in. Weeds of Cotton: Characteristics and Control. Memphis, TN The Cotton Foundation.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
Crozier, C. R. 2007. Fertilization. Pages 42–56. in Edmisten, K. L., editor. 2007 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Publication AG-417.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York J. Wiley. 33–42.511.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., Anderson, R. L., Evans, J. O., Lyon, D. J., Miller, S. D., Morishita, D. W., Ogg, A. G. Jr, Seefeldt, S., Stahlman, P. W., Northam, F. E., Westra, P., Kebede, Z., and Wicks, G. A. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum–Aegilops cylindrica interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:529–537.Google Scholar
Jugenheimer, R. W. 1976. Heterosis. Pages 55–60. in. Corn: Improvement, Seed Production, and Uses. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Bauman, P. A., and Chandler, J. M. 2001. Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol. 15:408–412.Google Scholar
Riffle, M. S., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Weeks, D. L. 1989. Duration and intensity of unicorn-plant (Proboscidea louisianica) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 3:313–316.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. B., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1996. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 10:107–114.Google Scholar
Rowland, M. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 47:305–309.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985a. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), I: buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985b. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), II: tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 8.00. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Brownie, C. 2000. Datura stramonium interference and seed rain in Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 48:613–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. S., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:799–803.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 30:553–556.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. E., Everman, W. J., Clewis, S. B., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Glyphosate-resistant corn interference in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 21:372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997. 1997 Pest Management in Major Field Crops. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/97upd/upd97-1.pdf. Accessed: January 30, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 2000. Acreage 2000. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg2000.pdf. Accessed: March 3, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 2005. Acreage 2005. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/field/pcp-bba/acrg0605.pdf. Accessed: March 3, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006. USDA–NASS Quick Stats (Corn Field). http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp. Accessed: March 3, 2007.Google Scholar
White, A. D. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Validation of HERB for use in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:573–579.Google Scholar
Wood, M. L., Murray, D. S., Westerman, R. B., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1999. Full-season interference of Ipomoea hederacea with Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:693–696.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Beam, J. B., and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Control of volunteer glyphosate-resistant soybean in cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 9:102–109.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Stewart, A. M., Vidrine, P. R., and Culpepper, A. S. 2004. Control of volunteer glyphosate-resistant cotton in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 18:532–539.Google Scholar