Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:48:36.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management Systems for Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with Reduced Tillage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joe E. Toler ,
Edward C. Murdock  and
Andrew Keeton
Joe E. Toler*
Affiliation:
Experimental Statistics, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
Edward C. Murdock
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
Andrew Keeton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current environmental concerns demand intensive research on conservation tillage for cotton production. Studies were conducted in 1994 and 1995 at Florence, SC, to evaluate weed and cotton response to various weed management systems in cotton with reduced tillage. Broadcast application of pendimethalin at 1.1 kg ai/ha and fluometuron at 2.2 kg ai/ha preemergence (PRE) followed by pyrithiobac at 0.07 kg ai/ha early postemergence (EPOST) was more effective than was a 38-cm band of these herbicides in controlling naturally occurring populations of sicklepod, Palmer amaranth, goosegrass, and southern crabgrass and in providing cotton yields equal to yields under weed-free conditions. With the 38-cm band of PRE and EPOST herbicides, two supplemental weed treatments at 3 and 7 wk after planting using glyphosate applied at 0.84 kg ae/ha POST with a hooded sprayer or a no-till cultivator was required to achieve acceptable weed control, but cotton yields were less than yields for the broadcast treatment alone. Glyphosate- or cultivation-only systems were generally ineffective in reducing weed interference and precluding cotton yield reductions. Optimum cotton production with reduced tillage can be achieved with broadcast application of PRE and EPOST herbicides but alternative methods offer promise for reducing costs and environmental effects and deserve additional study.

Keywords

Fluometuronglyphosatependimethalinpyrithiobacgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri L. #3 AMAPAsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. Irwin and Barneby # CASOBsouthern crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris L. # DIGSPcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘KC 311’Banded herbicide applicationbroadcast herbicide applicationcultivationfluometuronpendimethalinpyrithiobacEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 773 - 780
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. Am. Abstr. 38: 4.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 308–313.Google Scholar
Barnes, L. D. and Whitmore, R. W. 1990. The use of Prowl herbicide as a preemergence treatment in an irrigated reduced tillage cotton production system. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 14: 349–350.Google Scholar
Bloodworth, K. M., Reynolds, D. B., Shaw, D. R., Elkins, W. C., Serviss, B. E., and Snipes, C. E. 1997. Roundup Ready weed control programs in various tillage systems. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21: 782.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18: 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassis obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28: 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11: 335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4: 174–185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13: 411–420.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 2000. Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14: 19–29.Google Scholar
Derting, C. W. 1990. Return on investment in no-tillage vs conventional tillage cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 76–81.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1997. Roundup Ready cotton tolerance to Roundup Ultra applied at various growth stages. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21: 778.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Henniger, C. G., and Abernathy, J. R. 1996. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Devil's claw (Proboscidea louisianica) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 10: 7–12.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 290–325.Google Scholar
Federal Register, Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary. 1986. Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation; Final Rule and Notice of Finding of no Significant Impact. 7 CFR. Part 12, Vol. 52, No. 180, pp. 35194–35208.Google Scholar
Heering, D. C., Roth, R. D., Ferreira, K., and Mills, J. A. 1998. Commercial experience with Roundup Ready cotton in 1997. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 22: 851.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, R. L. 1993. Overview of conservation tillage. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton: A Review of Research and Demonstration Results from Across the Cotton Belt. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Special Rep. 160.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7: 196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalaher, C. J., Coble, H. D., and York, A. C. 1997. Morphological effects of Roundup application timings on Roundup-Ready® cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21: 780.Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Stricker, C. F. 1976. Herbicidal weed control in no-till planted corn. Weed Sci. 24: 605–611.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W. and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Preemergence weed control in a conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cropping system on sandy soils. Weed Technol. 3: 182–185.Google Scholar
LeBaron, H. L. and Gressel, J. 1982. Practical significance and means of control of herbicide resistant weeds. In LeBaron, H. L. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 309–322.Google Scholar
Monks, D. L., Patterson, M. G., Wilcut, J. W., and Delaney, D. P. 1999. Effect of pyrithiobac, MSMA, and DSMA on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) growth and weed control. Weed Technol. 13: 6–11.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugetta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with integrated methods as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 45: 706–715.Google Scholar
Poston, D. H., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Cost-efficient weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with cultivation and banded herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 6: 990–995.Google Scholar
Robinson, E. L., Langdale, G. W., and Stuedemann, J. A. 1984. Effects of three weed control regimes on no-till and tilled soybeans. Weed Sci. 32: 17–19.Google Scholar
Roof, M. E., Howle, D. S., Camberato, J. J., Murdock, E. C., Mueller, J. D., Christenbury, G. D., Loyd, M. I., and Jordan, J. W. 1994. South Carolina Cotton Growers Guide, Ext. Cir. 589, p. 37.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of morningglory species (Ipomoea sp.) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 42: 227–232.Google Scholar
Whitaker, F. D., Heinemann, H. G., and Wischmeier, W. H. 1973. Chemical weed controls effect run-off erosion and corn yields. J. Soil Water Conserv. 8: 174–175.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A. and Grabowski, P. H. 1986. Weed control in no-till sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 34: 577–581.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Hinton, J. D. 1997. Weed management in no-till and conventional-tillage Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21: 780.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1993. Weed Management for Reduced-Tillage Southeastern Cotton. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton: A Review of Research and Demonstration Results from Across the Cotton Belt. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Special Rep. 160.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 1998. Weed management in cotton. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 1998 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 74–118.Google Scholar