Abstract
Abstract Studies were conducted in 2019 and 2020 in Lewiston, NC, to determine the crop response of 4-hydroxyphenylpyrivate dioxygenase (HPPD)-resistant cotton to isoxaflutole (IFT) and other cotton herbicides as part of a cotton weed management program that included herbicides applied preemergence, early postemergence (EPOST), and mid-postemergence (MPOST). IFT was applied PRE at 105 g ha −1 alone and in various combinations with acetochlor, diuron, fluometuron, fluridone, fomesafen, pendimethalin, and pyrithiobac. EPOST treatments included IFT at 53 or 105 g ha −1 alone or in combination with glyphosate or glufosinate, or dimethenamid- P + glufosinate. Glyphosate + glufosinate was applied MPOST to all treatments except the nontreated control. Cotton injury from IFT applied PRE was minimal (0% to 3%). Injury following EPOST application of dimethenamid- P + glufosinate ranged from 3% to 5% and 6% to 9% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. In both years, injury from IFT applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST never exceeded injury from IFT applied PRE followed by dimethenamid- P + glufosinate. Isoxaflutole applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST at 105 g ha −1 resulted in 0% to 2% cotton injury, indicating that IFT can be applied either PRE or EPOST with minimal risk to cotton. Late-season cotton height and cotton lint yield were not affected by any herbicide treatment. The experimental HPPD-resistant cotton cultivar was minimally injured by IFT applied PRE and EPOST, it tolerated standard cotton herbicides, and yield loss was not observed. Given these results, HPPD-resistant cotton and IFT may be integrated into cotton weed management systems with minimal risk for cotton injury and provide an additional effective mechanism of action for managing troublesome weeds in cotton.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Preemergence IFT caused 0% to 3% cotton injury.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- IFT applied PREe0
- Outcome
- Cotton injurye0
- Direction
- minimale0
- Value
- 0% to 3%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cotton injury from IFT applied PRE was minimal (0% to 3%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Early postemergence dimethenamid-P plus glufosinate caused 3% to 5% injury in 2019.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- EPOST application of dimethenamid- P + glufosinatee0
- Outcome
- Injurye0
- Direction
- rangede0
- Value
- 3% to 5%e0
- Qualifier
- 2019e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Injury following EPOST application of dimethenamid- P + glufosinate ranged from 3% to 5% and 6% to 9% in 2019 and 2020, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Early postemergence dimethenamid-P plus glufosinate caused 6% to 9% injury in 2020.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- EPOST application of dimethenamid- P + glufosinatee0
- Outcome
- Injurye0
- Direction
- rangede0
- Value
- 6% to 9%e0
- Qualifier
- 2020e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Injury following EPOST application of dimethenamid- P + glufosinate ranged from 3% to 5% and 6% to 9% in 2019 and 2020, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
IFT PRE followed by IFT EPOST never caused greater injury than IFT PRE followed by dimethenamid-P plus glufosinate.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IFT applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOSTe0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- never exceedede0
- Comparator
- IFT applied PRE followed by dimethenamid- P + glufosinatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“injury from IFT applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST never exceeded injury from IFT applied PRE followed by dimethenamid- P + glufosinate.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
IFT PRE followed by IFT EPOST at 105 g ha−1 gave 0% to 2% cotton injury.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Isoxaflutole applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST at 105 g ha −1e0
- Outcome
- cotton injurye0
- Value
- 0% to 2%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Isoxaflutole applied PRE followed by IFT applied EPOST at 105 g ha −1 resulted in 0% to 2% cotton injury”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide treatments did not affect late-season cotton height.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- any herbicide treatmente0
- Outcome
- Late-season cotton heighte0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late-season cotton height and cotton lint yield were not affected by any herbicide treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide treatments did not affect cotton lint yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- any herbicide treatmente0
- Outcome
- cotton lint yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late-season cotton height and cotton lint yield were not affected by any herbicide treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose integrating resistant cotton and IFT into weed management with minimal injury risk.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Interactor
- weedse0weed
- Outcome
- may be integrated into cotton weed management systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HPPD-resistant cotton and IFT may be integrated into cotton weed management systems with minimal risk for cotton injury and provide an additional effective mechanism of action for managing troublesome weeds in cotton.”
The same questions in other papers
glufosinate · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →isoxaflutole · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
herbicide · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →herbicide · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →herbicide · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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.