Advertisement

Euphytica

, 215:3 | Cite as

Tolerance of commercial Upland (Gossypium hirsutum) and Pima (G. barbadense) cotton cultivars, advanced breeding lines and glandless cotton to halosulfuron (Sandea) herbicide under field conditions

  • Jinfa Zhang
  • Abdelraheem Abdelraheem
  • Tom Wedegaertner
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Halosulfuron (Sandea) herbicide is recommended to control problem weeds with the use of hood for cotton protection. However, no information is available on genotypic variation in cotton response to Sandea. In this study, 104 entries representing 81 cotton genotypes including 8 Pima (Gossypium barbadense L.) and 73 Upland (G. hirsutum L.) genotypes were divided into four replicated tests for evaluation of Sandea tolerance at the 4–5th true-leaf stage (27 days after planting, DAP) under the same field conditions in 2016. The analysis of variance did not detect a significant genotypic difference among the Pima cotton cultivars and lines tested, while there were significant genotypic variations in the three replicated Upland cotton tests. The broad-sense heritability estimates for Sandea tolerance based on crop injury ratings at 6 days after treatment (DAT) ranged from 72.1 to 82.6%, with an average of 77.9%. When 18 lines were tested in 2–3 tests (or twice in the same test), overall consistent results in crop injury ratings were obtained, which allowed the selection of the tolerant check Acala 1517-08 and the sensitive check glandless Acala 1517-18 GLS for screening cotton for Sandea tolerance. As compared to the tolerant check, no Upland genotype was more tolerant to Sandea, but many of them were as tolerant. However, three glandless cotton lines were the most sensitive to Sandea, which were significantly more sensitive to Sandea than all the glanded cotton tested except for PHY 499 WRF which was equally sensitive. Furthermore, seedlings at the first true-leaf stage (14 DAP) were not sensitive to Sandea, as no apparent crop injury was observed at 6 DAT. This is the first report on genotypic variation for Sandea tolerance in cotton, and the results provide useful information in cotton breeding for cultivar selection for tolerance to Sandea herbicide.

Keywords

Upland cotton Pima cotton Glandless Halosulfuron (Sandea) Herbicide tolerance 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Cotton Incorporated (12-257).

References

  1. Besançon TE, Jennings KM, Everman WJ (2017) Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of halosulfuron in cucumber, summer squash, and selected weeds. Weed Sci 65:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boydston RA (2007) Potato and weed response to postemergence-applied halosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and EPTC. Weed Technol 21:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandenberger LP, Talbert RE, Wiedenfeld RP, Shrefler JW, Webber CL III, Malik MS (2005) Effects of halosulfuron on weed control in commercial honeydew crops. Weed Technol 19:346–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buker RS, Rathinasabapathi B, Stall WM (2004) Physiological basis for differential tolerance of tomato and pepper to rimsulfuron and halosulfuron: site of action study. Weed Sci 52:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgos NR, Brandenberger L, Thomas C, Wells L, Shivrain V, Motes D, Eaton S, Martin L, Morelock T (2006) Cowpea tolerance to Sandea herbicide. HortScience 43(6):516Google Scholar
  6. Culpepper AS, Grey TL, Webster TM (2009) Vegetable response to herbicides applied to low-density polyethylene mulch prior to transplant. Weed Technol 23:444–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubelman AM, Solsten TR, Fujiwara H, Mehrsheikh A (1997) Metabolism of halosulfuron-methyl by corn and wheat. J Agric Food Chem 45:2314–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer DW, Harvey RG (2002) Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and annual weed control in glyphosate-resistant field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:482–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foster JD, Verhalen LM, Murray DS (1994) Prometryn tolerance in glanded versus glandless isolines. Crop Sci 34:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jennings KM (2010) Tolerance of fresh-market tomato to postemergence-directed imazosulfuron, halosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron. Weed Technol 24:117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ma D, Hu Y, Yang C, Liu B, Fang L, Wan Q, Liang W, Mei G, Wang L, Wang H, Ding L, Dong C, Pan M, Chen J, Wang S, Chen S, Cai C, Zhu X, Guan X, Zhou B, Zhu S, Wang J, Guo W, Chen X, Zhang T (2016) Genetic basis for glandular trichome formation in cotton. Nat Commun 7:10456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mohseni-Moghadam M, Doohan D (2017) Tolerance of processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties to halosulfuron-methyl. Weed Technol 31:430–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Molin WT, Khan RA (1996) Differential tolerance of cotton (Gossypium sp.) cultivars to the herbicide prometryn. Pestic Biochem Physiol 56:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mudge CR, Webster EP, Zhang W, Leon CT (2005) Rice (Oryza sativa) response to clomazone plus bensulfuron and halosulfuron. Weed Technol 19:879–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nandula VK, Poston DH, Reddy KN, Whiting K (2009) Response of soybean to halosulfuron herbicide. Int J Agron 2009:7.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/754510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norsworthy JH, Schroeder J, Thomas SH, Murray LM (2007) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) management in direct-seeded chile pepper using halosulfuron and cultivation. Weed Technol 21:636–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sikkema SR, Soltani N, Sikkema PH, Robinson DE (2008) Response of sweet maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids to halosulfuron. Crop Prot 27:695–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Starke KD, Monks DW, Mitchem WE, Macrae AW (2006) Response of five summer-squash (Cucurbita pepo) cultivars to Halosulfuron. Weed Technol 20:617–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stegink SJ, Vaughn KC (1988) Norflurazon (SAN-9789) reduces abscisic acid levels in cotton seedlings: a glandless isoline is more sensitive than its glanded counterpart. Pestic Biochem Physiol 31:269–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Trader BW, Wilson HP, Hines TE (2007) Halosulfuron helps control several broadleaf weeds in cucumber and pumpkin. Weed Technol 21:966–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trader BW, Wilson HP, Hines TE (2008) Control of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) in summer squash with halosulfuron. Weed Technol 22:660–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waldrop MP, Sterling TM, Khan RA, Molin WT (1996) Fate of prometryn in prometryn-tolerant and -susceptible cotton cultivars. Pestic Biochem Physiol 56:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Webster TM, Coble HD (1997) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) management in corn (Zea mays) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) rotations. Weed Technol 11:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zeng LH, Campbell BT, Dever JK, Zhang JF, Glass KF, Jones AS, Myers GO, Bourland FM (2014) Genotype by environment interaction effects on lint yield of cotton cultivars across major regions in the U.S. Cotton Belt. J Cotton Sci 18:75–84Google Scholar
  25. Zhang JF, Flynn R, Hughs SE, Bajaj S, Waddell C, Jones DC (2011) Registration of ‘Acala 1517-08’ cotton. J Plant Regist 5:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang JF, Idowu OJ, Wedegaertner T, Hughs SE (2014) Genetic variation and comparative analysis of thrips resistance in glandless and glanded cotton under field conditions. Euphytica 199:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhang JF, Idowu J, Flynn RP, Hughs SE, Jones DC, Wedegaertner T (2016) Registration of glandless ‘NuMex COT 15 GLS’ cotton. J Plant Regist 10:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang JF, Wedegaertner Idowu J, Sanogo S, Flynn R, Hughs SE, Jones DC (2018) Registration of a glandless ‘Acala 1517–18 GLS’ cotton. J Plant Regist.  https://doi.org/10.3198/jpr2017.05.0031crc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu Y, Lujan P, Dura S, Steiner R, Wedegaertner T, Zhang JF, Sanogo S (2018) Evaluation of commercial Upland (Gossypium hirsutum) and Pima (G. barbadense) cotton cultivars, advanced breeding lines and glandless cotton for resistance to Alternaria leaf spot (Alternaria alternata) under field conditions. Euphytica 214:147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Cotton IncorporatedCaryUSA

Personalised recommendations