Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:55:18.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology and Control of Black Nightshade (Solanum nigrum) in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Paul E. Keeley  and
Robert J. Thullen
Paul E. Keeley
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
Robert J. Thullen
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 4-yr study (1985, 1987, 1988, 1989) was conducted on the same field plots at Shafter, CA to evaluate the efficacy of prometryn in controlling black nightshade on planting beds of cotton. Two rates (1.7 and 2.2 kg ai ha–1) were applied at two times (mid March before the preplant irrigation and early April at cotton planting) each year. Incorporation of prometryn into moist planting beds with a powered rotary tiller operated at 10 cm deeper resulted in excellent control of black nightshade under low to moderate weed pressure in 1985 and 1987. Control of nightshade with early and late applications of 1.7 kg ha–1 of prometryn under high weed pressure in 1988 was only 70% at harvest, and yield losses of cotton averaged 25%. Yields of cotton treated with 2.2 kg ha–1 of prometryn in 1988 were not significantly different from weed-free plots. Only the late application of 2.2 kg ha–1 of prometryn prevented significant cotton losses under extreme weed pressure in 1989. Cotton yield losses with the other prometryn treatments ranged from 78 to 100%. Losses of cotton in weedy-check plots that received only cultivation ranged from 22% in the absence of rain or irrigation at cotton planting in 1987 to as much as 100% when rain fell in 1988 or plots were irrigated at planting in 1989. Plots hoed one time 4 wk after cotton planting yielded an average of 84% as much seed cotton as weed-free plots. In an attempt to determine why the efficacy of prometryn declined between 1985 and 1989, several experiments were conducted in 1988 to 1990 to discover reasons for this poor control of nightshade. Because efforts failed to provide evidence for the movement of the herbicide with water, the development of weed resistance to prometryn, or accelerated degradation of this herbicide in soil, increasing weed seed populations in soil were believed to have contributed greatly to the declining nightshade control from prometryn. The fact that prometryn applied and incorporated into flat soil provided excellent control of nightshade in 1990 under sprinkler irrigation indicated that both soil moisture and incorporation techniques limited activity of prometryn in planting beds in 1988 and 1989. Incomplete control of nightshade plus good soil moisture at planting contributed to the high weed populations in 1988 and 1989.

Keywords

Prometryn, N,N′-bis(1-methylethy)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineblack nightshade, Solanum nigrum L. ♯ SOLNIcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Acala SJ-2’Prometryncotton yieldweed seedling populationsweed seed populationsherbicide incorporationSOLNI
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 713 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Anonymous. 1984. Integrated pest management for cotton in the Western Region of the United States. Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3305.Google Scholar
2. Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Consecutive annual applications of alachlor and metolachlor to continuous no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:340–344.Google Scholar
3. Harvey, R. G. 1900. Biodegradation of butylate, EPTC, and extenders in previously treated soils. Weed Sci. 38:237–242.Google Scholar
4. Holm, L. F., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Solanum nigrum L., Solanaceae, Nightshade Family. p. 430–435. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 p. Google Scholar
5. Holt, J. S., and LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Keeley, P. E., Miller, J. H., Kempen, H. M., and Hoover, M. 1975. Survey of weeds on cotton farms in the San Joaquin Valley. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf. 27:39–47.Google Scholar
7. Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Miller, J. H. 1973. Yellow nutsedge and cotton response to several herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:327–329.Google Scholar
8. Keeley, P. E., and Thullen, R. J. 1983. Influence of planting date on the growth of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 31:180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Keeley, P. E., and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and competition of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:326–334.Google Scholar
10. Kempen, H. M. 1984. Herbicides: Do you know how they interact with your soils? California-Arizona Farm Press. 6(46):18–31.Google Scholar
11. Kempen, H. M., and Belluomini, P. 1985. Status of nightshade (Solanum spp.) control research for San Joaquin Valley growers. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 38:127.Google Scholar
12. Kempen, H. M. 1989. Growers Weed Management Guide. Thomson Publications, Fresno, CA. 247 p.Google Scholar
13. Miller, J. H., and Carter, L. M. 1968. Incorporation of herbicides in moist soil by powered rotary devices. Crops Research, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., ARS 34–100. p. 15.Google Scholar
14. Miller, J. H., Keeley, P. E., Thullen, R. J., and Carter, C. H. 1978. Persistence and movement of ten herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 26:20–27.Google Scholar
15. Miller, J. H., Carter, L. M., and Carter, C. H. 1983. An experimental incorporator-planter for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 31:208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Norris, R. F. 1984. Weed thresholds in relation to long-term population dynamics. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 37:38–43.Google Scholar
17. Ogg, A. G. Jr., Rogers, B. S., and Schilling, E. E. 1981. Characterization of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States. Weed Sci. 29:27–32.Google Scholar
18. Pareja, M. R., Staniforth, D. W., and Pareja, G. P. 1985. Distribution of weed seed among soil structural units. Weed Sci. 33:182–189.Google Scholar
19. Patterson, M. 1989. Report of the 1988 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Cotton Weed Sci. Res. Conf. 13:389–392.Google Scholar
20. Roberts, H. A., and Dawkins, P. A. 1967. Effect of cultivation on the numbers of viable weed seeds in soil. Weed Res. 7:290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Roberts, H. A., and Ricketts, M. E. 1979. Quantitative relationships between the weed flora after cultivation and the seed population in the soil. Weed Res. 19:269–275.Google Scholar
22. Taylorson, R. B. 1983. Aspects of seed biology and physiology in Weed Science. Weeds Today 14(2):3–4.Google Scholar
23. Thullen, R. J., and Keeley, P. E. 1982. The effects of some environmental conditions on the germination of black nightshade and ivyleaf morningglory. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 35:76–82.Google Scholar