Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:09:58.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economics of Weed Control Methods in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Snipes ,
Robert H. Walker ,
Ted Whitwell ,
Gale A. Buchanan ,
John A. McGuire  and
Neil R. Martin
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Ext. Weed Sci., Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Ext. Weed Sci., Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Ted Whitwell
Affiliation:
Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Gale A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ. and Rural Sociology, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn Univ., AL 36849
John A. McGuire
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ. and Rural Sociology, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Neil R. Martin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ. and Rural Sociology, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four cultivations of cotton [Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 213′] alone failed to reduce green weed biomass or increase seed cotton yields above that of the no weed control treatment, and thus resulted in a negative net return (−200 to −450 $/ha) all 4 yr. Two cultivations plus two hand-hoeings reduced green weed biomass and increased seed cotton yields 3 out of 4 yr, thus a positive net return was produced for 3 yr ranging from 300 to 640 $/ha. Fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] alone was the most effective treatment in reducing green weed biomass and increasing seed cotton yields, and produced the highest net return, 280 to 420 $/ha for the 4-yr period. The addition of cultivation did not improve the fluometuron treatment. However, diuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea)] required three supplementary cultivations to equal the single fluometuron treatment. Trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) plus three cultivations did not equal the single fluometuron treatment, although a positive net return was obtained every year. The addition of trifluralin to fluometuron also failed to improve weed control or net return over that of fluometuron alone.

Keywords

Cultivationhand-hoeingfluometurondiurontrifluralin
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 95 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbold, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25:132–134.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1964. Influence of tillage, row-spacing, and atrazine on sorghum and weed yields from nonirrigated sorghum across Nebraska. Weeds 12:211–215.Google Scholar
3. Cartee, R. L. and Hanks, R. J. 1974. Effect of ridging and early-season cultivation on bean yield. Agron. J. 66:632–635.Google Scholar
4. Dowler, C. C. and Hauser, E. 1974. The effect of cultivation on weeds controlled by fluometuron in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:112–115.Google Scholar
5. Harris, V. C. 1960. Weed control in cotton over a ten-year period by use of the more promising materials and techiques. Weeds 8:616–624.Google Scholar
6. Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1963. Cultivation techniques to combination with chemical weed control in cotton. Weeds 11:190–194.Google Scholar
7. Holstun, J. T. Jr., Wooten, O. B. Jr., McWhorter, C. G., and Crowe, G. B. 1960. Weed control practices, labor requirements, and costs in cotton production. Weeds 8:232–243.Google Scholar
8. McWhorter, C. G., Wooten, O. B., and Crowe, G. B. 1956. An economic evaluation of various weed control practices in the delta area of Mississippi. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 9:19–31.Google Scholar
9. Russell, W. J., Fehr, W. R., and Mitchell, R. L. 1971. Effects of row cultivation on growth and yield of soybeans. Agron. J. 63:772–774.Google Scholar
10. Treanor, L. L. Jr. and Andrews, H. 1965. Some effects of frequency of cultivation with and without herbicides on corn, cotton and soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 18:49–54.Google Scholar
11. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.Google Scholar
12. Whitaker, F. D., Heinemann, H. G., and Wischmeier, W. H. 1973. Chemical weed control affects runoff, erosion, and corn yields. Soil and Water Cons. 28:174–176.Google Scholar