Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:56:05.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Yield Response to Mechanical and Chemical Weed Control Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Snipes  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Delta Res. and Ext. Ctr., Stoneville, MS
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, South. Weed Sci. Lab., Stoneville, MS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton yield response was evaluated in 1987, 1988, and 1989 when weeds were managed with preemergence fluometuron [none (0%), band (50%), or broadcast (100%) surface coverage], cultivation (none, one, two, or three times), and postdirected fluometuron + MSMA. Weed densities (primarily prickly sida, morningglories, and hemp sesbania) varied widely among years and were directly related to early season rainfall. Postdirected herbicide application or cultivation(s) had little effect on weed density. The use of a banded fluometuron application reduced weed biomass 28 to 47%. A further decrease was observed when preemergence fluometuron was increased from banded to broadcast coverage. Seed cotton yields were low with no preemergence fluometuron. Banded fluometuron and at least one cultivation had yields similar to broadcast fluometuron only. Cotton yields were related to weed density and weed biomass in a hyperbolic relationship. Low weed densities caused more yield loss per unit weed density than higher densities.

Keywords

Fluometuron, N,N-diinethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ureaMSMA, monosodium salt of methylarsonic acidcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.‘DES 119′prickly sida, Sida spinosa #3 SIDSPhemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata # SEBEXmorningglories, Ipomoea species # IPOZZWeed competitionyield lossweed densityweed biomassinterferenceSIDSPIPOZZSEBEX
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 249 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. 1988. Pages 136–137 in Herbicide Handbook. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, EL.Google Scholar
2. Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Boyle, M., Frankenberger, W. T. Jr., and Stoley, L. H. 1989. The influence of organic matter or soil aggregation and water infiltration. J. Prod. Agric. 2:290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbold, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25:132–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1990. Report of the 1989 cotton weed loss committee. Page 366 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. Google Scholar
7. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Dowler, C. C. and Hauser, E. W. 1975. Weed control systems in cotton on Tifton loamy sand soil. Weed Sci. 23:40–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Dowler, C. C., Hauser, E. W., and Johnson, A. W. 1974. Crop-herbicide sequences on a Southeastern Coastal Plain Soil. Weed Sci. 22:500–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Egley, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1990. Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbances. Weed Sci. 38:504–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1991. Economics and efficacy of herbicides applied postemergence-directed in cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. (In press).Google Scholar
13. Higgins, J. M., Walker, R. H., and Whitwell, T. 1986. Coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis) competition with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 34:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Holstun, J. T. Jr. 1963. Cultivation techniques in combination with chemical weed control in cotton. Weeds 11:190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Plant growth and interference. Pages 93–138 in Weed Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
16. Rogers, C. B., Talbert, R. E., Mattice, J. D., Lavy, T. L., and Frans, R. E. 1985. Residual fluometuron levels in three Arkansas soils under continuous cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) production. Weed Sci. 34:122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. SAS. 1987. SAS User's Guide: Version 6.03. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
19. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. 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
22. Snipes, C. E., Barrentine, W. L., and Baker, R. S. 1989. Herbicide application technology in Mississippi cotton. Miss. Agric. and For. Exp. Stn. Bull. 956.Google Scholar