Paper · 2014 · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)

Occurrence and Management of Glyphosate Resistant Amaranthus Weed Species in Central Texas Cotton and Evaluation of Spray Droplet Size Spectra as Affected by Nozzle Design and Herbicide Formulation

Joshua McGinty

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

With the recent confirmation of glyphosate-resistant Amaranthus species in many important agronomic regions of the United States, a study was initiated to identify and document the occurrence of glyphosate resistant common waterhemp in East-central Texas. Accessions of several suspected glyphosate-resistant biotypes of common waterhemp were grown in a greenhouse before receiving rates of glyphosate from 434 to 3468 g ae ha^-1. Dose-response analyses were conducted to provide LD50 values for each accession. LD50 values ranged from 387 to 4549 g ae ha^-1 glyphosate. A study evaluating the efficacy of twelve different weed control programs for common waterhemp and Palmer amaranth control in cotton was conducted in Burleson County, TX in 2012 and 2013. The study was conducted in cotton possessing stacked glyphosate-, glufosinate-, and dicamba-tolerant technologies. Preplant and preemergence treatments included fomesafen, pendimethalin, prometryn, pyrithiobac, S-metolachlor, and trifluralin. These treatments were followed by a variety of early- and mid-postemergence treatments. Preplant and preemergence treatments resulted in 81 to 100% control of Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp with the exception of pyrithiobac, which provided only 29 to 60% control of these species. Following early- and mid-postemergence applications, 92 to 100% control of these species was obtained. Applications of pendimethalin PRE followed by pyrithiobac EPOST and glufosinate MPOST in 2013 provided lower control of both species (92 to 93 %) than all other treatments evaluated in the study 14 days after MPOST applications. With the potential commercialization of synthetic auxin-tolerant crops, there is an increased need for understanding of the influence of spray nozzle design and herbicide formulation on physical spray drift reduction. A study was conducted in a low speed wind tunnel utilizing laser diffraction technology to analyze the droplet size spectra produced by different spray nozzles and herbicide formulations. Nozzles utilizing a pre-orifice design or a combination of pre-orifice and air-inclusion design were observed to produce significantly larger spray droplets than those without these features. Herbicide formulations were shown to have a significant influence on droplet size as well. Different herbicide formulations were observed to decrease the production of drift-prone fine droplets by as much as 64%.

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Common waterhemp accessions had glyphosate LD50 values of 387 to 4549 g ae ha^-1.

Interactor
common waterhempt0weed
Outcome
LD50 valuese0
Value
387 to 4549 g ae ha^-1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“LD50 values ranged from 387 to 4549 g ae ha^-1 glyphosate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 512–570 · show in text ↑
t0

“common waterhemp in East-central Texas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 216–254 · show in text ↑
t1

“Central Texas Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–97 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preplant and preemergence programs controlled Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp by 81 to 100%.

Treatment
Preplant and preemergence treatmentse0
Interactor
Palmer amaranthe0weed
Second interactor
common waterhempe0weed
Outcome
control of Palmer amaranth and common waterhempe0
Direction
controle0
Value
81 to 100%e0
Comparator
pyrithiobace0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Preplant and preemergence treatments resulted in 81 to 100% control of Palmer amaranth and common waterhemp with the exception of pyrithiobac, which provided only 29 to 60% control of these species.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1090–1288 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–97 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pyrithiobac gave 29 to 60% control of the two weeds.

Treatment
pyrithiobace0
Outcome
control of these speciese0
Direction
onlye0
Value
29 to 60%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“pyrithiobac, which provided only 29 to 60% control of these species.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1220–1288 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–97 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early and mid postemergence applications gave 92 to 100% weed control.

Treatment
early- and mid-postemergence applicationse0
Outcome
control of these speciese0
Direction
controle0
Value
92 to 100%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Following early- and mid-postemergence applications, 92 to 100% control of these species was obtained.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1289–1391 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–97 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The pendimethalin, pyrithiobac and glufosinate sequence had lower weed control than other programs.

Treatment
pendimethalin PRE followed by pyrithiobac EPOST and glufosinate MPOSTe0
Outcome
control of both speciese0
Direction
lowere0
Value
92 to 93 %e0
Comparator
all other treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Applications of pendimethalin PRE followed by pyrithiobac EPOST and glufosinate MPOST in 2013 provided lower control of both species (92 to 93 %) than all other treatments evaluated in the study 14 days after MPOST applications.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1392–1620 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–97 · show in text ↑

pendimethalin · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

glufosinate · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 20 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

herbicide · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

68 papers: 57 positive, 11 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

64 papers more in this group

See all 68 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.