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.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate at 430 g ae/ha caused at most 15% visible cotton injury after two or three POST applications.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Material
- PHY 485 WRFe0
- Treatment
- glufosinate ammonium salt at 430e0
- Outcome
- visibly injurede0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 15 and 20% or lesse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“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”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate at 860 g ae/ha caused at most 20% visible cotton injury after two or three POST applications.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- PHY 485 WRFe0
- Treatment
- glufosinate ammonium salte0
- Outcome
- visibly injurede0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 20% or lesse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“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”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate at 550 g/ha injured cotton by up to 36%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- glufosinate at 550 g/hae0
- Outcome
- injured cottone0
- Direction
- injurede0
- Value
- 36%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“glufosinate at 550 g/ha injured cotton up to 36%”
Claim · model-written summary
Pyrithiobac mixed with glufosinate did not increase cotton injury relative to glufosinate alone.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Pyrithiobace0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
- Comparator
- glufosinate applied alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Pyrithiobac or glyphosate mixed with glufosinate did not increase injury compared to glufosinate applied alone”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate mixed with glufosinate did not increase cotton injury relative to glufosinate alone.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- glyphosate mixed with glufosinatee0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
- Comparator
- glufosinate applied alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Pyrithiobac or glyphosate mixed with glufosinate did not increase injury compared to glufosinate applied alone”
Claim · model-written summary
S-metolachlor mixed with glufosinate increased cotton injury by six to seven percentage points.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- S -metolachlor mixed with glufosinatee0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- six to seven percentage pointse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“S -metolachlor mixed with glufosinate increased injury by six to seven percentage points”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton injury was undetectable 14 to 21 days after glufosinate application.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- glufosinate applicatione0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- not detectablee0
- Qualifier
- 14 to 21 de0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Cotton injury was not detectable 14 to 21 d after glufosinate application”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate or its mixtures did not reduce cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- glufosinate or glufosinate mixturese0
- Outcome
- cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- not reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“cotton yields were not reduced by glufosinate or glufosinate mixtures”
Claim · model-written summary
A pendimethalin, glyphosate and diuron plus MSMA program controlled 17% of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth late in the season.
- Taxon
- Palmer amaranthe0
- Treatment
- pendimethalin PRE, glyphosate applied POST twice, and diuron plus MSMA POST-directede0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Outcome
- controlled glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranthe0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 17%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“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”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding S-metolachlor to the first glyphosate application did not improve Palmer amaranth control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- S -metolachlor included with the initial glyphosate applicatione0
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“S -metolachlor included with the initial glyphosate application did not increase control”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding pyrithiobac improved late-season Palmer amaranth control by only 13 percentage points.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- pyrithiobace0
- Outcome
- late-season controle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13 percentage pointse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“pyrithiobac increased late-season control by only 13 percentage points”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing glyphosate with glufosinate in the program controlled Palmer amaranth by at least 90%.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Palmer amaranth was controlled 90% or more when glufosinate replaced glyphosate in the aforementioned system”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate programs controlled pitted morningglory by 99%.
- Taxon
- Pitted morningglorye0
- Treatment
- glufosinate programse0
- Interactor
- Pitted morningglorye0weed
- Outcome
- Pitted morningglory was controllede0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 99%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Pitted morningglory was controlled 99% by all glufosinate programs and mixtures of glyphosate plus pyrithiobac”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate plus pyrithiobac controlled pitted morningglory by 99%.
- Taxon
- Pitted morningglorye0
- Treatment
- glyphosate plus pyrithiobace0
- Interactor
- Pitted morningglorye0weed
- Outcome
- Pitted morningglory was controllede0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 99%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Pitted morningglory was controlled 99% by all glufosinate programs and mixtures of glyphosate plus pyrithiobac”
Claim · model-written summary
Glufosinate systems produced at least 3.3 times the seed cotton yield of glyphosate systems.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- glufosinate-based systemse0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Outcome
- Seed cotton yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- at least 3.3 timese0
- Comparator
- glyphosate-based systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“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”
The same questions in other papers
glufosinate · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →glufosinate · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →metolachlor · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
glyphosate · crop injury · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →glyphosate · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 38 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.