Abstract
Abstract Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth continues to be challenging to control across the U.S. cotton belt. Timely application of POST herbicides and herbicides applied at planting or during the season with residual activity are utilized routinely to control this weed. Although glyphosate controls large Palmer amaranth that is not GR, herbicides such as glufosinate used in resistance management programs for GR Palmer amaranth must be applied when weeds are small. Dicamba can complement both glyphosate and glufosinate in controlling GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotypes in resistant cultivars. Two studies were conducted to determine Palmer amaranth control, weed biomass, and cotton yield, as well as to estimate economic net return when herbicides were applied 2, 3, 4, and 5 wk after planting (WAP). In one experiment POST-only applications were made. In the second experiment PRE herbicides were included. In general, Palmer amaranth was controlled at least 98% by herbicides applied at least three times regardless of timing of application or herbicide sequence. Glyphosate plus dicamba applied at 4 and 5 WAP controlled Palmer amaranth similarly compared to three applications by 8 WAP; however, yield was reduced 23% because of early-season interference. The inclusion of PRE herbicides benefited treatments that did not include herbicides applied 2 or 3 WAP. Glyphosate plus dicamba applied as the only herbicides 5 WAP provided 69% control of Palmer amaranth. PRE herbicides increased control to 96% for this POST treatment. Economic returns were similar when three or more POST applications were applied, with or without PRE herbicides.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Three or more herbicide applications controlled Palmer amaranth at least 98% regardless of timing or sequence.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- herbicides applied at least three timese0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Outcome
- Palmer amaranth was controllede0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- 98%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Palmer amaranth was controlled at least 98% by herbicides applied at least three times regardless of timing of application or herbicide sequence.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate plus dicamba at 4 and 5 WAP controlled Palmer amaranth similarly to three applications by 8 WAP.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Glyphosate plus dicamba applied at 4 and 5 WAPe0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Outcome
- Palmer amaranthe0
- Direction
- similarlye0
- Comparator
- three applications by 8 WAPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Glyphosate plus dicamba applied at 4 and 5 WAP controlled Palmer amaranth similarly compared to three applications by 8 WAP”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed application reduced cotton yield 23% because of early-season interference.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Glyphosate plus dicamba applied at 4 and 5 WAPe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 23%e0
- Comparator
- three applications by 8 WAPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Glyphosate plus dicamba applied at 4 and 5 WAP controlled Palmer amaranth similarly compared to three applications by 8 WAP; however, yield was reduced 23% because of early-season interference.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Including PRE herbicides benefited treatments without applications at 2 or 3 WAP.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- PRE herbicidese0
- Outcome
- benefitede0
- Direction
- benefitede0
- Comparator
- treatments that did not include herbicides applied 2 or 3 WAPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The inclusion of PRE herbicides benefited treatments that did not include herbicides applied 2 or 3 WAP.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate plus dicamba as the only herbicides at 5 WAP provided 69% Palmer amaranth control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Glyphosate plus dicamba applied as the only herbicides 5 WAPe0
- Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe0weed
- Outcome
- control of Palmer amaranthe0
- Value
- 69%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Glyphosate plus dicamba applied as the only herbicides 5 WAP provided 69% control of Palmer amaranth.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE herbicides increased Palmer amaranth control to 96% for that POST treatment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- PRE herbicidese0
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 96%e0
- Comparator
- this POST treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRE herbicides increased control to 96% for this POST treatment.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Economic returns were similar with at least three POST applications, whether PRE herbicides were included or not.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- three or more POST applicationse0
- Outcome
- Economic returnse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- with or without PRE herbicidese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Economic returns were similar when three or more POST applications were applied, with or without PRE herbicides.”
t0“cotton”
The same questions in other papers
glyphosate · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →dicamba · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →dicamba · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →dicamba · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →glyphosate · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →glyphosate · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →herbicide · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
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.