Abstract
Field studies were conducted 2004 and 2005 to evaluate weed control following POST applications of glyphosate in combination with either S -metolachlor (premix formulation), pyrithiobac, or trifloxysulfuron in conjunction with glyphosate in second-generation glyphosate-resistant cotton (Roundup Ready Flex). These herbicides were applied in combination with glyphosate in a two-application program at the 2-leaf (LF) (followed by glyphosate alone at the 10-LF growth stage), 6-LF (following glyphosate alone at the 2-LF growth stage), or 10-LF (following glyphosate alone at the 2-LF growth stage) cotton growth stages. No differences in weed control between residual herbicide were observed for goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, sicklepod, or smellmelon. Optimum control of barnyardgrass and browntop millet was achieved with glyphosate plus S -metolachlor. No differences were observed among application timings for control of goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, pitted morningglory, and smellmelon. Control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, and sicklepod was optimized with residual herbicide application at the 2- or 10-LF timing. No yield differences were observed between residual herbicides, and seed cotton yield averaged 2,800 kg/ha. Yield was maximized when residual herbicide was applied at the 2- or 10-LF growth stage (2,960 to 2,730 kg/ha). Analysis based on numerical yield at particular residual-herbicide application timings and calculated yield for each timing based on the percentage of a standard three-application glyphosate program indicated the most consistent residual-herbicide timing for optimizing yield in a reduced-input Roundup Ready Flex weed-control program occurred at the two-leaf growth stage. All reduced-input programs, however, resulted in cotton yield of at least 93% of that obtained with the standard program.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
No differences in control of goosegrass, hemp sesbania and Johnsongrass were seen between the residual herbicides.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- residual herbicidee0
- Interactor
- goosegrasse0weed
- Second interactor
- hemp sesbaniae0weed
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- No differencese0
- Qualifier
- Johnsongrasse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“No differences in weed control between residual herbicide were observed for goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, sicklepod, or smellmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
No differences in control of Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed and sicklepod were seen between the residual herbicides.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- residual herbicidee0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Second interactor
- redroot pigweede0weed
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- No differencese0
- Qualifier
- sicklepode0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“No differences in weed control between residual herbicide were observed for goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, sicklepod, or smellmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
No difference in control of smellmelon was seen between the residual herbicides.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- residual herbicidee0
- Interactor
- smellmelone0weed
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- No differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“No differences in weed control between residual herbicide were observed for goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, sicklepod, or smellmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Optimum control of barnyardgrass and browntop millet was achieved with glyphosate plus S-metolachlor.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- glyphosate plus S -metolachlore0
- Interactor
- barnyardgrass
Echinochloa crus-gallie0weed - Second interactor
- browntop millete0weed
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- Optimume0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“Optimum control of barnyardgrass and browntop millet was achieved with glyphosate plus S -metolachlor”
Claim · model-written summary
Application timing did not affect control of goosegrass, hemp sesbania and Johnsongrass.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- application timingse0
- Interactor
- goosegrasse0weed
- Second interactor
- hemp sesbaniae0weed
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- No differencese0
- Qualifier
- Johnsongrasse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“No differences were observed among application timings for control of goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, pitted morningglory, and smellmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Application timing did not affect control of pitted morningglory and smellmelon.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- application timingse0
- Interactor
- pitted morningglorye0weed
- Second interactor
- smellmelone0weed
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- No differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“No differences were observed among application timings for control of goosegrass, hemp sesbania, Johnsongrass, pitted morningglory, and smellmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Control of barnyardgrass and browntop millet was optimized with residual herbicide at the 2- or 10-leaf timing.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- residual herbicide application at the 2- or 10-LF timinge0
- Interactor
- barnyardgrassEchinochloa crus-gallie0weed
- Second interactor
- browntop millete0weed
- Outcome
- Controle0
- Direction
- optimizede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“Control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, and sicklepod was optimized with residual herbicide application at the 2- or 10-LF timing”
Claim · model-written summary
Control of Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed and sicklepod was optimized with residual herbicide at the 2- or 10-leaf timing.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- residual herbicide application at the 2- or 10-LF timinge0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Second interactor
- redroot pigweede0weed
- Outcome
- Controle0
- Direction
- optimizede0
- Qualifier
- sicklepode0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“Control of barnyardgrass, browntop millet, Palmer amaranth, redroot pigweed, and sicklepod was optimized with residual herbicide application at the 2- or 10-LF timing”
Claim · model-written summary
No seed cotton yield differences were seen between residual herbicides; yield averaged 2,800 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- residual herbicidese0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- No yield differencese0
- Value
- 2,800 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“No yield differences were observed between residual herbicides, and seed cotton yield averaged 2,800 kg/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was maximized when residual herbicide was applied at the 2- or 10-leaf stage (2,960 to 2,730 kg/ha).
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- residual herbicide was applied at the 2- or 10-LF growth stagee0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- maximizede0
- Value
- 2,960 to 2,730 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“Yield was maximized when residual herbicide was applied at the 2- or 10-LF growth stage (2,960 to 2,730 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Analysis indicated the two-leaf stage was the most consistent residual-herbicide timing for optimizing yield in a reduced-input Roundup Ready Flex program.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- most consistent residual-herbicide timing for optimizing yielde0
- Qualifier
- two-leaf growth stagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“the most consistent residual-herbicide timing for optimizing yield in a reduced-input Roundup Ready Flex weed-control program occurred at the two-leaf growth stage”
Claim · model-written summary
All reduced-input programs gave cotton yield of at least 93% of the standard program.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- reduced-input programse0
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- at least 93%e0
- Value
- 93%e0
- Comparator
- standard programe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Glyphosate-Resistant Cotton”
e0“All reduced-input programs, however, resulted in cotton yield of at least 93% of that obtained with the standard program”
The same questions in other papers
glyphosate · Echinochloa crus-galli · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
stage · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →herbicide · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →herbicide · weed · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 100 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
104 papers more in this group
See all 108 papers →herbicide · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
122 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
178 papers more in this group
See all 182 papers →herbicide · Echinochloa crus-galli · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.