Paper · 1997 · Weed Technology

Weed Management in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with Soil-Applied and Post-Directed Herbicides

John W. Wilcut; David L. Jordan; William K. Vencill; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
50
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Broadleaf weed and yellow nutsedge control with herbicide programs containing pendimethalin and combinations of fomesafen, fluometuron, and norflurazon applied alone or with POST-directed applications of MSMA or fluometuron plus MSMA was evaluated. Soil-applied herbicide combinations containing fomesafen controlled yellow nutsedge better than combinations of norflurazon and fluometuron but did not provide better entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglory or sicklepod control. Fluometuron plus MSMA controlled morningglories and sicklepod more effectively than MSMA. Seed cotton yield was greater in one of two years when fomesafen was applied and was associated with better yellow nutsedge control.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fomesafen combinations controlled yellow nutsedge better than norflurazon and fluometuron combinations.

Treatment
herbicide combinations containing fomesafene0
Interactor
yellow nutsedgee0weed
Outcome
yellow nutsedgee0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
combinations of norflurazon and fluometurone0

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

“Soil-applied herbicide combinations containing fomesafen controlled yellow nutsedge better than combinations of norflurazon and fluometuron”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 249–388 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–25 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fomesafen combinations did not improve morningglory or sicklepod control relative to norflurazon and fluometuron combinations.

Treatment
fomesafent1
Interactor
sicklepode0weed
Outcome
entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglory or sicklepod controle0
Direction
did not provide bettere0
Comparator
norflurazon and fluometuront1

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

“but did not provide better entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglory or sicklepod control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 389–488 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–25 · show in text ↑
t1

“fomesafen controlled yellow nutsedge better than combinations of norflurazon and fluometuron”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 296–388 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fluometuron plus MSMA controlled morningglories and sicklepod better than MSMA.

Treatment
Fluometuron plus MSMAe0
Interactor
sicklepode0weed
Outcome
morningglories and sicklepode0
Direction
more effectivelye0
Comparator
MSMAe0

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

“Fluometuron plus MSMA controlled morningglories and sicklepod more effectively than MSMA.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 489–578 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 19–25 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fomesafen raised seed cotton yield in one of two years.

Treatment
fomesafene0
Outcome
Seed cotton yielde0
Direction
greatere0
Qualifier
one of two yearse0

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

“Seed cotton yield was greater in one of two years when fomesafen was applied and was associated with better yellow nutsedge control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 579–711 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher seed cotton yield was associated with better yellow nutsedge control.

Interactor
yellow nutsedgee0weed
Outcome
Seed cotton yielde0
Direction
greatere0

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

“Seed cotton yield was greater in one of two years when fomesafen was applied and was associated with better yellow nutsedge control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 579–711 · show in text ↑

fomesafen · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    The specified clomazone and pendimethalin sequence yielded equivalently to the standard herbicide system.

    Clomazone, Fomesafen, and Bromoxynil Systems for Bromoxynil-Resistant Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)1 · 2002 · compared with standard herbicide system of pendimethalin PPI fb fluometuron PRE fb bromoxynil EPOST fb LAYBY

    Same directionCites this paper

  2. no effect
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

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

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.