Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:02:18.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Control of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gregory S. Stapleton ,
Edward C. Murdock  and
Joe E. Toler
Gregory S. Stapleton
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634
Edward C. Murdock
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634
Joe E. Toler
Affiliation:
Dep. Exp. Stat., Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC 29634
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

POST control of cowpea in cotton was evaluated in 1990 and 1991. Early POST-directed (EPD) application of fluometuron + MSMA provided 89% cowpea control 2 wk after treatment. Cowpea control 4 wk after the early treatments was similar with fluometuron + MSMA EPD and sequential directed applications of MSMA followed by (fb) MSMA, methazole + MSMA fb cyanazine + MSMA, and fluometuron + MSMA fb cyanazine + MSMA. The average reduction in cowpea biomass 12 wk after planting with these treatments was 93%. MSMA fb MSMA POST-directed was the only treatment with a lint cotton yield similar to that of weed-free cotton. Lint cotton yields with fluometuron + MSMA, methazole + MSMA fb cyanazine + MSMA, and fluometuron + MSMA fb cyanazine + MSMA were similar to those obtained with MSMA fb MSMA.

Keywords

Cyanazine, 2-[[4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2-methylpropanenitrilefluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureamethazole, 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1,2,4-oxadiazolidine-3,5-dioneMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 320’cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. ‘Black’ # VIGSISequential herbicide applicationspostemergence-directed herbicides
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 478 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Barton, L. V. 1965. Dormancy in seeds imposed by the seed coat in Ruhland, W., ed., Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York. 15(2):727–745.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:258–262.Google Scholar
4. Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35:270–276.Google Scholar
5. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A., 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:484–487.Google Scholar
6. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 45:395.Google Scholar
7. Elmore, C. D. 1983. Weed Survey—Southern States. South Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 36:168.Google Scholar
8. Elmore, C. D. 1989. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:408–420.Google Scholar
9. Grafstrom, J. D. Jr. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1988. Uptake and translocation of fluazifop in green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 36:153–158.Google Scholar
10. Hogue, C. W. 1971. Directed versus topical application of herbicide combinations in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:93–98.Google Scholar
11. Lush, W. M. and Evans, L. T. 1980. The seed coats of cowpeas and other grain legumes: Structures in relation to function. Field Crops Res. 3:267–286.Google Scholar
12. Martin, J. H., Leonard, W. H., and Stamp, D. L. 1976. Cowpeas. p. 714–721 in Principles of Field Crop Production. 3rd ed. MacMillan Publ. Co., Inc., New York.Google Scholar
13. Murdock, E. C. 1980. South Carolina extension weed survey. Clemson University, Agronomy and Soils Extension Series No. 1.Google Scholar
14. Murphy, T. R. 1985. Factors affecting the presence of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) as a weed in soybean (Glycine max). Ph. D. Dissertation. Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
15. Muzik, T. J. and Mauldin, W. G. 1963. Influence of environment on the response of plants to herbicides. Weeds 11:142–145.Google Scholar
16. Oakley, S. R., Frans, R. E., and Waddle, B. A. 1982. Effect of MSMA applied over-the-top on position of fruiting in cotton. p. 229–231 in Brown, J. M., ed. Beltwide Cotton Res. Conf., Las Vegas, NV. January 3–7, 1982. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
17. Piper, C. V. 1912. Agricultural varieties of the cowpeas and immediately related species. U. S. Dep. Agric. Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. 229.Google Scholar
18. Wilson, H. K. and Myers, W. M. 1954. Large seeded legumes grown primarily for seed. p. 326–349 in Wilson, H. K. and Myers, W. M., Field Crop Production. J. B. Lippincott Co., New York.Google Scholar
19. York, A. C. 1985. Integrated weed management in cotton. North Carolina Agric. Ext. Serv. Bull. AG-275.Google Scholar