Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:01:29.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Standard and Reduced Production Inputs on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Dale Monks ,
Michael G. Patterson ,
Barry L. Freeman  and
Bobby E. Norris
C. Dale Monks
Affiliation:
Agron. and Soils Dep., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Agron. and Soils Dep., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Barry L. Freeman
Affiliation:
Dep. Ento., Ala. Coop. Ext. Ser., Decatur, AL 35602
Bobby E. Norris
Affiliation:
Tenn. Valley Substation, Belle Mina, AL 35615
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted from 1991 to 1993 in the northern cotton-producing area of Alabama to evaluate the interaction of various production inputs for pest management and cotton development, maturity, and yield. Two levels of tillage (conventional and no-till), herbicide (1.12 and 2.24 kg ai ha−1 fluometuron, preemergence, with post-directed herbicides), insecticide (0.5 and 0.85 kg ai ha−1 aldicarb, in-furrow), and fungicide (0.9 kg ai ha−1 quintozene plus ethridazole, in-furrow or 0.14 kg ai ha−1 metalaxyl, hopper-box) programs were evaluated. The inputs investigated did not interact significantly to change the overall production strategy. Prickly sida required a higher level of herbicide input than did the entireleaf/ivyleaf morningglory complex. Both species were sufficiently controlled using reduced levels of fluometuron without sacrificing yield; however, cultivation was necessary in conventional tillage treatments to maintain control. A postemergence-directed herbicide treatment was also necessary for weed control, regardless of tillage. Decreasing the levels of each input simultaneously did not interact to affect cotton stand, height, early-season thrips counts, cotton maturity, or yield. Cotton was shorter in no-till than conventional plots.

Keywords

aldicarb, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio) propionaldehyde-O-(methylcarbamoyl) oximeethridazole, 5-ethoxy-3-(trichloromethyl)-1,2,4-thiadiazolefluometuron, N, N-dimethyl-N′-[3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureaglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycinemetalaxyl, N-(2,6-dimcthylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetal) alanine methyl esterquintozene, pentachloroni-trobenzonecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., ‘DPL-50,’ ‘DPL-51’entireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray ♯ IPOHGivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. ♯ IPOHEprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. ♯ SIDSPthrips spp., Frankliniella spp.Integrated cropping systemsIPOHEIPOHGSIDSP
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 911 - 914
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. 1987. Highly erodible land and wetland conservation: final rule and notice of finding no significant impact. Federal Register 52(180): 35193–35208.Google Scholar
2. Baumhardt, R. L., Keeling, J. W., and Wendt, C. W. 1993. Tillage and residue effects on infiltration into soils cropped to cotton. Agron. J. 85: 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bordovsky, J. P., Lyle, W. M., and Keeling, J. W. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on soil water and cotton yield. Agron. J. 86: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Brown, S. M., Chandler, J. M., and Morrison, J. E. 1987. Weed control in a conservation tillage rotation in the Texas Blacklands. Weed Sci. 35: 695–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1985. Weed control programs for minimum-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33: 843–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Derting, C. W. 1990. Return on investment in no-tillage vs. conventional tillage cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43: 76–79.Google Scholar
7. Jenkins, J. N., McCarty, J. C. Jr., and Parrott, W. L. 1990. Effectiveness of fruiting sites in cotton: yield. Crop Sci. 30: 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. McCarter, S. M. and Roncadori, R. W. 1971. Influence of low temperature during cotton seed germination on growth and disease susceptibility. Phytopathology 61: 1426–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1985. Limited tillage in cotton production. Pages 61–76 in Weise, A.F., ed. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
11. Mutchler, C. K., McDowell, L. L., and Greer, J. D. Soil loss from cotton with conservation tillage. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28: 160–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Patterson, M. G. and Burmester, C. H. 1993. General production practices for conservation-tillage cotton in the southeast in Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Report 160: 10–12.Google Scholar
13. Patterson, M. G., Goodman, W. R., Norris, B. E., and Freeman, B. L. 1993. Reducing production inputs may be profitable for cotton producers. Highlights of Agric. Res., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. 40(1): 11.Google Scholar
14. Paxton, K. W., Lavergne, D. R., and Hutchinson, R. L. 1993. Conservation-tillage vs. conventional tillage systems for cotton: an economic comparison. Proc. Southern Conservation Tillage Conf. for Sust. Agric. pp. 95–99.Google Scholar
15. Rein, B. K., Thacker, G. W., and Coates, W. E. 1989. Energy input and crop response to reduced cotton tillage systems in Arizona. Proc. Int. Conf. Paper No. 891087.Google Scholar
16. Rickerl, D. H., Curl, E. A., Touchton, J. T., and Gordon, W. B. 1992. Crop mulch effects on Rhizoctonia soil infestation and disease severity in conservation-tilled cotton. Soil Bio. Biochem. 24: 553–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Segarra, E., Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1991. Tillage and cropping system effects on cotton yield and profitability on the Texas southern high plains. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 566–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N.R. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32: 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Stevens, W. E., Johnson, J. R., Varco, J. J., and Parkman, J. 1992. Tillage and winter cover management effects on fruiting and yield of cotton. J. Prod. Agric. 5: 570–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Unger, P. W. and Weise, A. F. 1979. Managing irrigated winter wheat residues for water storage and subsequent dryland grain sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43: 582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Weise, A. F., Harman, W. L., and Regier, C. 1994. Economic evaluation of conservation tillage systems for dryland and irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in the southern Great Plains. Weed Sci. 42: 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1993. Weed management for reduced-tillage in southeastern cotton in Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Report 160: 29–35.Google Scholar
23. Wyse, D. L. 1994. New technologies and approaches for weed management in sustainable agriculture systems. Weed Technol. 8: 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Yoo, K. H. and Touchton, J. T. 1989. Runoff and soil loss by crop growth stage under three cotton tillage systems. J. Soil and Water Conservation. 44: 225–228.Google Scholar
25. Yoo, K. H., Touchton, J. T., and Walker, R. H. 1989. Effect of conservation-tillage systems of cotton on surface runoff and its quality. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 44: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar