Paper · 2022 · Weed Technology

Utility of isoxaflutole-based herbicide programs in HPPD-tolerant cotton production systems

Rodger Farr; Jason K. Norsworthy; L. Tom Barber; et al.

8
claims
14
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Palmer amaranth has developed resistance to at least seven herbicide sites of action in the Cotton Belt of the United States, leaving producers with fewer options to manage this weed. Previous research with corn and newly commercially released soybean systems have found the use of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting herbicides such as isoxaflutole (IFT) to be effective at managing Palmer amaranth. Consequently, a new transgenic cultivar of cotton is being developed with tolerance to IFT, allowing for in-crop applications of the herbicide. Two separate studies were conducted near Marianna, AR, in 2019 and replicated in 2020, to investigate the crop safety and utility of IFT when added to cotton herbicide programs. Herbicide programs featured IFT as a preemergence or early-postemergence option, residual herbicides in subsequent postemergence applications, and the presence or absence of a layby application. The use of IFT did not significantly impact cotton injury or yield, whereas the use of layered residual herbicides, including IFT, increased Palmer amaranth control compared to those without. Regardless of earlier use of IFT, layby applications were needed for season-long control of Palmer amaranth, entireleaf morningglory, broadleaf signalgrass, and johnsongrass, as evidenced by greater than a 20 percentage point improvement in control of all weeds when a layby application was made. Overall, findings from these studies indicate IFT to be a suitable tool for managing Palmer amaranth and will provide an additional site of action for cotton herbicide programs. Sequential herbicide applications and overlaying residuals were found to be paramount for managing Palmer amaranth throughout the season.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IFT did not significantly affect cotton injury.

Treatment
IFTe0
Outcome
cotton injurye0
Direction
did not significantly impacte0

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

“The use of IFT did not significantly impact cotton injury or yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1011 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IFT did not significantly affect cotton yield.

Treatment
IFTe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
did not significantly impacte0

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

“The use of IFT did not significantly impact cotton injury or yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1011 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Layered residual herbicides including IFT increased Palmer amaranth control.

Treatment
layered residual herbicides, including IFTe0
Interactor
Palmer amaranthe0weed
Outcome
Palmer amaranth controle0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
those withoute0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“the use of layered residual herbicides, including IFT, increased Palmer amaranth control compared to those without.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1021–1136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Layby application improved Palmer amaranth control by over 20 percentage points.

Treatment
layby applicatione0
Interactor
Palmer amaranthe0weed
Outcome
season-long control of Palmer amaranthe0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
greater than a 20 percentage pointe0

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

“layby applications were needed for season-long control of Palmer amaranth, entireleaf morningglory, broadleaf signalgrass, and johnsongrass, as evidenced by greater than a 20 percentage point improvement in control of all weeds when a layby application was made.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1433 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Layby application improved entireleaf morningglory control by over 20 percentage points.

Treatment
layby applicatione0
Interactor
entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
entireleaf morningglorye0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
greater than a 20 percentage pointe0

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

“layby applications were needed for season-long control of Palmer amaranth, entireleaf morningglory, broadleaf signalgrass, and johnsongrass, as evidenced by greater than a 20 percentage point improvement in control of all weeds when a layby application was made.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1433 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Layby application improved broadleaf signalgrass control by over 20 percentage points.

Treatment
layby applicatione0
Interactor
broadleaf signalgrassUrochloa platyphyllae0weed
Outcome
broadleaf signalgrasse0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
greater than a 20 percentage pointe0

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 ↗
Urochloa platyphylla
Urochloa platyphylla · InteractorAndrés González · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“layby applications were needed for season-long control of Palmer amaranth, entireleaf morningglory, broadleaf signalgrass, and johnsongrass, as evidenced by greater than a 20 percentage point improvement in control of all weeds when a layby application was made.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1433 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Layby application improved johnsongrass control by over 20 percentage points.

Treatment
layby applicatione0
Interactor
johnsongrassSorghum halepensee0weed
Outcome
johnsongrasse0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
greater than a 20 percentage pointe0

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 ↗
Sorghum halepense
Sorghum halepense · InteractorMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“layby applications were needed for season-long control of Palmer amaranth, entireleaf morningglory, broadleaf signalgrass, and johnsongrass, as evidenced by greater than a 20 percentage point improvement in control of all weeds when a layby application was made.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1171–1433 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton production systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–91 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors consider IFT suitable for Palmer amaranth management in cotton.

Interactor
Palmer amaranthe0weed
Outcome
suitable tool for managing Palmer amaranthe0

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

“IFT to be a suitable tool for managing Palmer amaranth and will provide an additional site of action for cotton herbicide programs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1480–1611 · show in text ↑

isoxaflutole · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

isoxaflutole · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.