Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:07:52.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in No-Till Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with Thiazopyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Roger B. Batts  and
Alan C. York
Roger B. Batts
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thiazopyr at 0.14, 0.28, and 0.42 kg ai/ha and pendimethalin at 1.1 kg ai/ha applied preemergence (PRE) were compared as components in weed management systems for no-till cotton. Mid- and late-season control of mixtures of large crabgrass, goosegrass, and fall panicum by thiazopyr at 0.28 kg/ha was 89 to 97% and 11 to 50%, respectively, compared with 11 to 38% midseason and 0 to 5% late-season control by pendimethalin. Thiazopyr at 0.42 kg/ha and pendimethalin controlled broadleaf signalgrass 44 and 0%, respectively, late in the season. Adding fluometuron PRE at 1.7 kg ai/ha had little to no effect on large crabgrass, goosegrass, and fall panicum control but increased broadleaf signalgrass control 47 to 79 percentage points compared with thiazopyr or pendimethalin alone. Late-season control of annual grasses by thiazopyr or pendimethalin plus fluometuron PRE followed by methazole plus MSMA early postemergence (POST)-directed and cyanazine plus MSMA late POST-directed was at least 95% at two locations and 80% at the third location. Common lambsquarters was controlled 54 and 95% in systems without and with fluometuron PRE, respectively. Acceptable control of ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglories at all locations and smooth pigweed at two of three locations was achieved only in systems with POST-directed herbicides. Adding POST-directed herbicides to systems with thiazopyr or pendimethalin plus fluometuron PRE increased cotton yield at two of three locations. Treatments had no effect on fiber quality.

Keywords

methazole, 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1,2,4-oxadiazolidine-3,5-dioneMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDIgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth # PHBPUWeed controlcyanazinefluometuronmethazoleMSMApendimethalinAmaranthus hydridusBrachiaria platyphyllaChenopodium albumDigitaria sanguinalisEleusine indicaIpomoea hederaceaIpomoea lacunosaIpomoea purpureaPanicum dichotomiflorumAMACHBRAPPCHEALDIGSAELEINIPOHEIPOLAPANDIPHBPUPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergencePPI, preplant incorporated
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 580 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Anonymous. 1994a. RH-123652 Experimental Herbicide. Philadelphia, PA: Rohm and Haas. 6 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994b. Thiazopyr. In Ahrens, W. H., ed. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 280–281.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. CTIC National Crop Residue Management Survey. West Lafeyette, IN: Conservation Technology Information Center. 21 p.Google Scholar
Batts, R. B. 1997. Integration of thiazopyr into weed management systems in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). M.S. thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 66 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Reduced-tillage systems. In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. pp. 323–341.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbold, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25:132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987a. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35:270–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and York, A. C. 1987b. Annual grass control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with fluazifop, sethoxydim, and selected dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 35:388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. 1996. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) management in sulfonylurea-tolerant soybean (Glycine max) and weed management systems in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). M.S. thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 138 p.Google Scholar
Guy, C. B., Beaty, J. D., and Rahn, P. R. 1993. Weed control systems in cotton with MON-13200. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:30.Google Scholar
Kasai, M. 1991. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of MON 13200 by tolerant and susceptible species and the effect on root growth. Ph.D. thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 92 p.Google Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:365–370.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Hayes, R. M. 1996. Effect of thiazopyr on soybean growth and dissipation in soil. Weed Sci. 44:694–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Willian, W. T. 1994. Weed control and crop tolerance of MON 13211 in conventional till and minimum till soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 34:6.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J. V. and Dec, G. W. Jr. 1978. Photodecomposition of eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, M. G., Norris, B. E., and Zorn, C. J. 1994. Preemergence grass control in conservation tillage cotton. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Diego, CA. Jan. 5–8, 1994. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. p. 1698.Google Scholar
Sasser, P. E. 1981. The basics of high volume instruments for fiber testing. In Brown, J. M., ed. Beltwide Cotton Products Research Conference, New Orleans, LA. Jan. 4–8, 1981. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 191–193.Google Scholar
Savage, K. E. and Jordan, T. N. 1980. Persistence of three dinitroaniline herbicides on the soil surface. Weed Sci. 28:105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) yield response to mechanical and chemical weed control systems. Weed Sci. 40:249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1993. Weed management for reduced-tillage southeastern cotton. In McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation Tillage Systems for Cotton. Special Rep. 160. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas. pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. pp. 343–400.Google Scholar
York, A. C. 1996. Weed management in cotton. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 1996 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 98–136.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Edmisten, K. L., Naderman, G. C., and Bacheler, J. S. 1995. No-till cotton production. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 1995 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 140–145.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Wilcut, J. W., Murdock, E. C., and Johnson, E. M. 1992. Weed management in cotton with MON 13211. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, Nashville, TN. Jan. 7–10, 1992. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 1316 p.Google Scholar