No abstract

Field experiments were conducted in Georgia to evaluate weed control and crop tolerance with glufosinate applied to ‘PHY 485 WRF®’ cotton. This glyphosate-resistant cotton also contains a gene, used as a selectable marker, for glufosinate resistance. Three experiments were maintained weed-free and focused on crop tolerance; a fourth experiment focused on control of pitted morningglory and glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. In two experiments, PHY 485 WRF cotton was visibly injured 15 and 20% or less by glufosinate ammonium salt at 430 and 860 g ae/ha, respectively, applied POST two or three times. In a third experiment, glufosinate at 550 g/ha injured cotton up to 36%. Pyrithiobac or glyphosate mixed with glufosinate did not increase injury compared to glufosinate applied alone;S-metolachlor mixed with glufosinate increased injury by six to seven percentage points. Cotton injury was not detectable 14 to 21 d after glufosinate application, and cotton yields were not reduced by glufosinate or glufosinate mixtures. A program of pendimethalin PRE, glyphosate applied POST twice, and diuron plus MSMA POST-directed controlled glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth only 17% late in the season.S-metolachlor included with the initial glyphosate application did not increase control, and pyrithiobac increased late-season control by only 13 percentage points. Palmer amaranth was controlled 90% or more when glufosinate replaced glyphosate in the aforementioned system. Pitted morningglory was controlled 99% by all glufosinate programs and mixtures of glyphosate plus pyrithiobac. Seed cotton yields with glufosinate-based systems were at least 3.3 times greater than yields with glyphosate-based systems because of differences in control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.

No abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth has become a serious pest in parts of the Cotton Belt. Some GR cotton cultivars also contain the WideStrike™ insect resistance trait, which confers tolerance to glufosinate. Use of glufosinate-based management systems in such cultivars could be an option for managing GR Palmer amaranth. The objective of this study was to evaluate crop tolerance and weed control with glyphosate-based and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. The North Carolina field experiment compared glyphosate and glufosinate alone and in mixtures applied twice before four- to six-leaf cotton. Additional treatments included glyphosate and glufosinate mixed withS-metolachlor or pyrithiobac applied to one- to two-leaf cotton followed by glyphosate or glufosinate alone on four- to six-leaf cotton. All treatments received a residual lay-by application. Excellent weed control was observed from all treatments on most weed species. Glyphosate was more effective than glufosinate on glyphosate-susceptible (GS) Palmer amaranth and annual grasses, while glufosinate was more effective on GR Palmer amaranth. Annual grass and GS Palmer amaranth control by glyphosate plus glufosinate was often less than control by glyphosate alone but similar to or greater than control by glufosinate alone, while mixtures were more effective than either herbicide alone on GR Palmer amaranth. Glufosinate caused minor and transient injury to the crop, but no differences in cotton yield or fiber quality were noted. This research demonstrates glufosinate can be applied early in the season to PHY 485 WRF cotton without concern for significant adverse effects on the crop. Although glufosinate is often less effective than glyphosate on GS Palmer amaranth, GR Palmer amaranth can be controlled with well-timed applications of glufosinate. Use of glufosinate in cultivars with the WideStrike trait could fill a significant void in current weed management programs for GR Palmer amaranth in cotton.

Inheritance of glyphosate resistance in a Palmer amaranth biotype from North Carolina was studied. Glyphosate rates for 50% survival of glyphosate-resistant (GR) and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotypes were 1288 and 58 g ha−1, respectively. These values for F1 progenies obtained from reciprocal crosses (GR×GSandGS×GRwere 794 and 501 g ha−1, respectively. Dose response of F1 progenies indicated that resistance was not fully dominant over susceptibility. Lack of significant differences between dose responses for reciprocal F1 families suggested that genetic control of glyphosate resistance was governed by nuclear genome. Analysis of F1 backcross (BC1F1) families showed that 10 and 8 BC1F1 families out of 15 fitted monogenic inheritance at 2000 and 3000 g ha−1glyphosate, respectively. These results indicate that inheritance of glyphosate resistance in this biotype is incompletely dominant, nuclear inherited, and might not be consistent with a single gene mechanism of inheritance. Relative 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) copy number varied from 22 to 63 across 10 individuals from resistant biotype. This suggested that variableEPSPScopy number in the parents might be influential in determining if inheritance of glyphosate resistance is monogenic or polygenic in this biotype.