Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:19:53.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control Systems in Cotton on Tifton Loamy Sand Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Clyde C. Dowler  and
E. W. Hauser
Clyde C. Dowler
Affiliation:
ARS, USDA, Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Sta., Tifton, GA 31794
E. W. Hauser
Affiliation:
ARS, USDA, Georgia Coastal Plain Exp. Sta., Tifton, GA 31794
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We evaluated nine systems of weed control over a 3-year period for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) tolerance and control of weeds on Tifton loamy sand soil. Cultivation with sweeps did not control weeds effectively, which allowed weed competition to reduce cotton yields. Five cultivations plus an annual average of 185 hr/ha hand-hoeing was required to keep cotton relatively free of weeds for 7 to 8 weeks after planting. The use of herbicides offered certain economic advantages over systems using only cultural practices in controlling weeds. A preplant application of trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) reduced annual hand-hoeing requirements by 66 hr/ha. The level of weed control at harvest time increased each year in all systems that used a herbicide program, but not where only cultivation or hand-hoeing was used. The continuous use of specific weed-control systems shifted weed populations. Systems that achieved 100% control by the end of the third year included all of the following: (a) a preplanting or at planting treatment of trifluralin or EPTC (S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) plus (b) a preemergence application of fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea], (c) two directed postemergence sprays with MSMA (monosodium methanearsonate), and (d) diuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea]. Large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] and Florida pusley (Richardia scabra L.) were nearly eliminated where we used trifluralin. Systems that did not include a postemergence application of MSMA allowed common cocklebur (Xanthium pennsylvanicum Wallr.), Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC], and other weeds to emerge and remain in the crop row, reducing yield of lint cotton. Cotton yield appeared to be directly related to the level of early-season weed control. We did not detect biologically active soil residues at harvest time each year. Our weed-control systems did not affect cotton fiber length, strength, or color.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 40 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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. Baker, R.S. and Tupper, G.R. 1972. Weed control in narrow-row cotton. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:141–146.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G.A. and Burns, E.R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
3. Dowler, C.C. 1969. A cucumber bioassay test for the soil residues of certain herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:309–310.Google Scholar
4. Dowler, C.C. and Hauser, E.W. 1971. Texas panicum control in corn. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:148–155.Google Scholar
5. Dowler, C.C. and Hauser, E.W. 1972. Weed control systems in corn. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:155–160.Google Scholar
6. Hamilton, K.C. and Arle, H.F. 1971. Herbicide combinations in irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 19:178–182.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, E.W., Jellum, M.D., Dowler, C.C., and Marchant, W.H. 1972. Systems for weed control for soybeans in the Coastal Plain. Weed Sci. 20:592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hauser, E.W., Cecil, S.R., and Dowler, C.C. 1973. Systems of weed control for peanuts. Weed Sci. 21:176–180.Google Scholar
9. Kerr, H.D. 1971. Herbicide Systems for Cotton. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:85–86. (abstract)Google Scholar