Paper · 2004 · Weed Technology

Field Performance of Glyphosate as Influenced by Selected Adjuvants and a Low-Volume, Air-Assisted Sprayer

Wilson H. Faircloth; Michael G. Patterson; Sidney B. Belcher; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station near Shorter, AL, from 1998 to 2000 to evaluate six commercial spray adjuvants and their effects on glyphosate applied to cotton with an air-assisted sprayer. Each adjuvant was evaluated with a conventional sprayer calibrated to deliver 94 L/ha solution and a low-volume, air-assisted sprayer calibrated to deliver 19 L/ha solution. Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Visual control of pitted and entireleaf morningglory was more dependent on the rate of herbicide application than on a particular adjuvant or sprayer, with glyphosate at 0.42 kg ae/ha providing 70% control 21 d after treatment. Pitted and entireleaf morningglory biomass measurements generally reflected visual control data. Ammonium sulfate and formulated glyphosate consistently gave the highest visual control and the greatest biomass reduction. Glyphosate application rate was more important than adjuvant addition or sprayer type, with the higher rates of application providing greater control. No differences in weed control were observed between spray systems; therefore, air-assisted sprayers may be used on a field-scale basis with consistent and adequate results.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Glyphosate at 0.42 kg ae/ha gave 70% visual control of pitted and entireleaf morningglory 21 d after treatment.

Treatment
glyphosate at 0.42 kg ae/hae1
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
visual controle1
Value
70%e1
Qualifier
21 d after treatmente1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e1

“Visual control of pitted and entireleaf morningglory was more dependent on the rate of herbicide application than on a particular adjuvant or sprayer, with glyphosate at 0.42 kg ae/ha providing 70% control 21 d after treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–745 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Visual control of morningglory depended more on herbicide rate than on adjuvant or sprayer.

Treatment
rate of herbicide applicatione1
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
visual controle1
Direction
more dependente1

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e1

“Visual control of pitted and entireleaf morningglory was more dependent on the rate of herbicide application than on a particular adjuvant or sprayer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–668 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Morningglory biomass measurements generally reflected visual control data.

Interactor
Pitted and entireleaf morningglorye2weede0
Outcome
biomass measurementse2
Comparator
visual control datae2

Not reportedDirection

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e2

“Pitted and entireleaf morningglory biomass measurements generally reflected visual control data”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 747–842 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium sulfate gave the highest visual control of morningglory in glyphosate-treated cotton.

Treatment
Ammonium sulfatee3
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
visual controle3
Direction
higheste3
Qualifier
consistentlye3

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e3

“Ammonium sulfate and formulated glyphosate consistently gave the highest visual control and the greatest biomass reduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–966 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Formulated glyphosate gave the highest visual control of morningglory in cotton.

Treatment
formulated glyphosatee3
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
visual controle3
Direction
higheste3
Qualifier
consistentlye3

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e3

“Ammonium sulfate and formulated glyphosate consistently gave the highest visual control and the greatest biomass reduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–966 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium sulfate gave the greatest biomass reduction of morningglory in cotton.

Treatment
Ammonium sulfatee3
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
biomass reductione3
Direction
greateste3

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e3

“Ammonium sulfate and formulated glyphosate consistently gave the highest visual control and the greatest biomass reduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–966 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Formulated glyphosate gave the greatest biomass reduction of morningglory in cotton.

Treatment
formulated glyphosatee3
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
biomass reductione3
Direction
greateste3

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e3

“Ammonium sulfate and formulated glyphosate consistently gave the highest visual control and the greatest biomass reduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–966 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher glyphosate application rates gave greater morningglory control than lower rates.

Treatment
higher rates of applicatione4
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
controle4
Direction
greatere4

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e4

“Glyphosate application rate was more important than adjuvant addition or sprayer type, with the higher rates of application providing greater control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 968–1117 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed control did not differ between the conventional and the air-assisted spray systems.

Treatment
spray systemse5
Interactor
pitted and entireleaf morningglorye0weed
Outcome
weed controle5
Direction
No differencese5

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e5

“No differences in weed control were observed between spray systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1119–1185 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Air-assisted sprayers may be used on a field-scale basis in cotton with consistent and adequate results.

Outcome
air-assisted sprayers may be used on a field-scale basise6

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

“Glyphosate was applied to two-leaf pitted and entireleaf morningglory growing in glyphosate-resistant cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–517 · show in text ↑
e6

“air-assisted sprayers may be used on a field-scale basis with consistent and adequate results”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1198–1291 · show in text ↑

glyphosate · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

13 papers: 4 positive, 9 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

ammonium sulfate · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

ammonium sulfate · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

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

41 papers: 38 positive, 3 negative or no effect

37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

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.