Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:22:34.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Synergistic effect of cover crops residue and herbicides for effective weed management in southern U.S. cotton production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2024

Annu Kumari*
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Plant Physiologist, USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Auburn, AL, USA
Audrey Gamble
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Steve Li
Affiliation:
Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
Alana Jacobson
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
*
Corresponding author: Annu Kumari; Email: azk0132@auburn.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cover crop adoption is increasing among growers with the occurrence of herbicide-resistant weed species. A field study conducted at three sites from autumn 2021 through the crop harvest in 2022 in Alabama aimed to evaluate the combined effect of cover crop residue and herbicides for weed control and improved cotton lint yield. The experiment was conducted in split-plot design with main plots consisting of six cover crop treatments: cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, radish, cover crop mixture, and winter fallow. The subplots included four herbicide treatments: (i) preemergence, pendimethalin + fomesafen, (ii) postemergence, dicamba + glyphosate + S-metolachlor, (iii) preemergence followed by postemergence, and (iv) nontreated (NT) check. Cover crops, excluding radish, exhibited greater weed biomass reduction than winter fallow with corresponding herbicide treatments of either preemergence, postemergence, or preemergence + postemergence as compared to control (winter fallow and NT check). Considering preemergence + postemergence treatment, cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, and cover crop mixture provided >95% weed biomass reduction as compared to control. Looking at the overall effect of cover crop, cereal rye outperformed and showed greater weed biomass reduction than radish relative to control. Preemergence + postemergence herbicide treatment resulted in greater lint yield than other treatments. Cotton in cereal rye plots had a greater lint yield than in winter fallow at one out of three locations. In conclusion, integrating herbicides and incorporating high-residue cover crops such as cereal rye is an effective weed management strategy to control troublesome weeds.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

In the southern United States, morningglory (Ipomoea spp.), nutsedge (Cyperus spp.), Palmer amaranth [Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats.], and sicklepod [Senna obtusifolia (L.)] are some of the troublesome and prevalent weed species in the cotton production system (Webster Reference Webster and Nichols2012). In addition, the development and spread of herbicide-resistant weed species poses a significant threat to cotton production systems (Vulchi et al. Reference Vulchi, Bagavathiannan and Nolte2022). By 2021, 65 unique cases of herbicide resistance had been documented in 12 different weed species. Among these, one of the most economically harmful weeds in U.S. cotton production was Palmer amaranth, which evolved resistance to several sites of action such as microtubule inhibitors, synthetic auxins, acetolactate synthase, and protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors (Heap Reference Heap2023).

Historically, cotton was grown under conventional tillage practices involving moldboard plowing, disking, harrowing, and cultivation. However, greater cost of production, lower product prices, development of herbicide-resistant crops, and other concerns related to soil health, such as soil loss to erosion and decreased soil organic matter content, required the adoption of alternative tillage decisions such as conservation tillage. Some strip-tillage production systems incorporate a row subsoiler to disrupt soil compaction within the crop row only without significantly disturbing the soil surface residue (Raper Reference Raper2007). At the same time, conservation tillage systems often relied more on herbicides for weed control because of limited mechanical options, such as reduced or no tillage. This increased reliance on herbicides accelerated the development of herbicide resistance, particularly if the same herbicides were used repeatedly and were not integrated with other weed management practices. Furthermore, the extensive threat of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth puts substantial constraints on conservation tillage, resulting in inadequate weed control in crop production when adopting this practice (Price et al. Reference Price, Balkcom, Culpepper, Kelton, Nichols and Schomberg2011).

Meanwhile, the adoption of cover crops has consistently increased in the last decade and gained popularity in the southeastern United States (Wallander et al. Reference Wallander, Smith, Bowman and Claassen2021). The area of cover crop was around 4 million ha in 2012 and reached 6.23 million ha in 2017, representing a 50% increase. Furthermore, the anticipated growth is approximately 40 million ha by 2025 in the United States (Hamilton et al. Reference Hamilton, Mortensen and Allen2017). Cover crops with conservation tillage have long been utilized to mitigate soil erosion problems, reduce water runoff losses, and improve water infiltration, soil moisture content, soil organic carbon, and nitrogen cycling over the past few decades (Dabney et al. Reference Dabney, Delgado and Reeves2001; Sainju and Singh Reference Sainju and Singh1997). Cover crops have also been investigated because they can hinder the early-season establishment of weed populations and control weed growth by diminishing light transmission and quality, modifying soil temperature, competing for essential nutrients, and physically suppressing weed emergence (Teasdale and Mohler Reference Teasdale and Mohler2000) and releasing allelopathic chemicals (Sturm et al. Reference Sturm, Peteinatos and Gerhards2018). The level of weed suppression provided by the cover crop is determined by the amount of cover biomass, residue persistence, management practices (Saini et al. Reference Saini, Price and van Santen2006), and cover crop type. Cover crop response can vary according to specific regions and management methods (Schomberg et al. Reference Schomberg, McDaniel, Mallard, Endale, Fisher and Cabrera2006). According to Price et al. (Reference Price, Reeves and Patterson2006), winter cereal cover crops were ineffective in suppressing weed species without including an herbicide treatment, achieving only 60% weed control on average over 3 yr. However, cover crops alone could provide only early-season weed control (Price et al. Reference Price, Balkcom, Duzy and Kelton2012); thus, growers should consider integrating herbicide programs with cover crops for better weed control throughout the crop growing season.

Therefore, we conducted field experiments to evaluate the synergistic effects of six different cover crops, including brassicas, cereals, legumes, and cover crop mixtures, combined with preemergence and postemergence herbicide treatments. The study aimed to integrate cover crops and herbicide programs for effective weed control in southern cotton grown within a conservation system while maintaining cotton lint yield.

Materials and Methods

Location

Field experiments took place in 2021–2022 at three different sites in Alabama, including E.V. Smith (EVS) Auburn University Research and Extension Center, Shorter, AL (Field Crops Unit; 32.4417° N, 85.8974° W), Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station (WREC), Headland, AL (31.166737° N, 85.382148° W), and Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center (TVREC), Belle Mina, AL (34.683° N, 86.883° W). At the EVS research site, the characteristics of the soil were Compass sandy loam (coarse-loamy, siliceous, subactive, thermic Paleudults), pH 6.2, and 0.8% organic matter. At the WREC site, the soil was a Dothan fine sandy loam (fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Plinthic Paleudult) with pH 6.0 and 1.1% organic matter. Finally, the soil type at TVREC was Decatur silt loam (fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic Paleudults), pH 6.0, and 2.3% organic matter. The sampling depth for these properties was up to 10 cm deep from the soil surface.

Experimental Design and Treatments

The experimental design was a split plot with three replications of each treatment at each location. Cover crops were considered as the main plot factor, and herbicide treatments were considered in the subplot factor, which was arranged in a randomized complete block design within the subplots. The six cover crop treatments were cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, radish, cover crop mixture, and winter fallow. The cover crop mixture combined cereal rye, crimson clover, radish, and oat. The four herbicide treatments included: (i) pendimethalin at 0.95 kg ai ha−1 (Prowl® H2O; BASF Ag. Products, Research Triangle Park, NC) + fomesafen 0.28 kg ai ha−1 (Reflex®; Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC) applied preemergence; (ii) dicamba at 0.96 kg ai ha−1 (Xtendimax; Bayer Crop Science, St Louis, MO) + glyphosate at 1.55 kg ae ha−1 (Roundup Powermax®; Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO) + S-metolachlor at 1.07 kg ae ha−1 (Dual II Magnum®; Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC) applied postemergence; (iii) the preemergence treatment followed by the postemergence treatment; and (iv) a nontreated (NT) check. In total, there were 24 different treatments of cover crops and herbicides at each site.

Crop Management

Cover crops were planted no-till using a JD 7730 and a Great Plains® no-till drill (Great Plains, Salina, KS) with GreenStar GPS (John Deere, Moline, IL) at each location in the second to third week of November 2021. Cover crop varieties and seeding rates were ‘Wrens Abruzzi’ cereal rye at 100 kg ha–1, ‘Cosaque’ oat at 67 kg ha–1, ‘Dixie’ crimson clover with inoculant at 22.4 kg ha–1, and ‘Daikon’ radish at 9.0 kg ha–1. Cereal rye at 33.6 kg ha–1, oat at 22.2 kg ha–1, crimson clover at 6.7 kg ha–1, and radish at 4.48 kg ha–1 were combined for the cover crop mix. All cover crops were drill-seeded at a depth of 2.5 cm with a row spacing of 15 cm. The germination for all cover crops was >80%. Cover crop treatments were fertilized with N at 35 kg ha–1 as ammonium nitrate in spring to maximize biomass production. In the second week of April, the cover crop plots were rolled mechanically using a roller-crimper to level the biomass residue on the soil surface at each location. Just after the mechanical rolling of cover crops, termination was enhanced with an application of glyphosate at 0.91 kg ae ha−1 plus glufosinate (Liberty; Bayer Crop Science, Research Triangle Park, NC) at 0.57 kg ai ha−1.

‘Phytogen 480 F3E’ cotton was planted with a strip-till cultivation system, using 13 seeds m–1 at each site during the second week of May 2022 using a four-row planter equipped with double-disk openers and row cleaners to minimize cover crop residue disturbance. Preemergence herbicides (pendimethalin + fomesafen) were applied just after cotton planting, and postemergence herbicides (dicamba + glyphosate + S-metolachlor) were applied approximately 4 wk after planting of cotton. All herbicides were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with TTI 11004 nozzles (TeeJet, Glendale Heights, IL) at 276 kPa calibrated to deliver 280 L ha−1. Cotton yield was collected from the middle two rows of each plot with a harvesting area of 12 m2 using conventional harvesting equipment altered for small-plot research.

Data Collection

One day before cover crop termination, cover crop biomass samples were collected randomly in a 0.25-m² quadrat per plot by cutting all vegetation above the soil surface. All samples were then placed in a dryer set at 65 C for 72 h; then dry weight was measured and recorded. Cotton stand counts were taken from 1-m-long stands from each of the two center rows 3 wk after planting (WAP). Visible weed control was evaluated 4 and 7 WAP using a scale of 0 to 100%. Weed biomass was collected 7 WAP from a randomly selected 0.25-m2 quadrat within each subplot between the middle two rows. Dry weights were collected following methods described earlier.

Data Analysis

The analysis utilized R statistical software version 3.4.1 and the “agricolae” package (de Mendiburu Reference de Mendiburu2022). Cover crop biomass was subjected to ANOVA to test the impact of different types of cover crops. ANOVA was applied to assess the impact of herbicides and cover crops on relative weed biomass and lint yield. Equation 1 gives the formula to calculate relative weed biomass reduction.

(1) $$\eqalign{ & {\rm{Weed}}\;{\rm{biomass}}\;{\rm{relative}}\;{\rm{to}}\;{\rm{check}}\;\left( \% \right) \cr & \quad \quad = {{{\rm{Weed}}\;{\rm{biomas}}{{\rm{s}}_{\left( {{\rm{Control}}} \right)}}\; - \;{\rm{Weed}}\;{\rm{biomas}}{{\rm{s}}_{\left( {{\rm{Treatment}}} \right)}}} \over {{\rm{Weed}}\;{\rm{biomas}}{{\rm{s}}_{\left( {{\rm{Control}}} \right)}}\;}} \times 100\; \cr} $$

Control in Equation 1 is winter fallow with NT check. In the model, cover crop and herbicide treatments and locations were considered fixed effects, whereas replication was considered a random variable. As there was significant interaction of locations with treatments (three-way interaction), the data were examined separately for each site. Means were separated using Tukey’s HSD post-hoc comparison test at α < 0.05 to explore the effects of treatments on relative weed biomass reduction and lint yield. Figures were generated using Sigma Plot software (version 13.0; Systat Software, San Jose, CA).

Results and Discussion

Cover Crop Biomass

At TVREC, cereal rye, oat, and cover crop mixture produced biomass of 4,286, 4,112, and 3,508 kg ha–1, respectively (Figure 1A). At WREC, cereal rye, oat, and cover crop mixture produced biomass of 5,638, 4,496, and 5,438 kg ha–1, respectively (Figure 1B). Furthermore, at EVS, cereal rye, oat, and mixture produced biomass of 6,133, 6,150, and 6,069 kg ha–1, respectively (Figure 1C). Overall, cover crop biomass at each location trended similarly, with cereal rye, oat, and the cover crop mixture producing statistically the same biomass at each location, greater than crimson clover and radish. A meta-analysis suggested that cover crop biomass can vary by the location of the study (Osipitan et al. Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa and Knezevic2018, Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019).

Figure 1. Cover crop biomass production at Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center (A), Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station (B), E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center (C). Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05.

Relative Weed Biomass Reduction

Recent research has explained and validated cover crops and herbicides can work together synergistically to reduce weed seed germination, establishment, and survival of weed seedlings by explaining the underlying mechanisms such as physical suppression (Bunchek et al. Reference Bunchek, Wallace, Curran, Mortensen, VanGessel and Scott2020; Wallace et al. Reference Wallace, Curran and Mortensen2019).

TVREC: A significant interaction between cover crops and herbicides (P < 0.001) was observed at TVREC. Palmer amaranth and prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.) were the dominant weeds. Regardless of the cover crop used, relative weed biomass was reduced by herbicide application compared to the NT (Figure 2A). Specifically, following a preemergence + postemergence herbicide application, the reduction in overall relative weed biomass did not differ among cover crops used and provided greater reduction than herbicides alone (Figure 2A). However, cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, and cover crop mixture in combination with all herbicide treatments reduced relative weed biomass 99% (Figure 2A).

Figure 2. Interaction of cover crops and herbicides on relative weed biomass reduction at Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center (A), Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station (B), E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center (C). Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

Considering only postemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, and cover crop mixture provided >90% relative weed biomass reduction, which was statistically greater than radish (75%) and winter fallow plots (58%). A mixture of glyphosate and dicamba can provide excellent control of weed species that dicamba alone could not control effectively (Underwood et al. Reference Underwood, Soltani, Hooker, Robinson, Vink, Swanton and Sikkema2017). Glyphosate and dicamba mixture increased the glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth control by 40% (Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Young, Matthews, Marquardt, Slack, Bradley, York, Culpepper, Hager, Al-Khatib, Steckel, Moechnig, Loux, Bernards and Smeda2010). For exclusive preemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, and cover crop mixture provided >90% reduction in relative weed biomass, which was significantly greater than radish (79%) and winter fallow (74%). Pendimethalin provided >80% control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth 3 wk after application (Whitaker et al. Reference Whitaker, York, Jordan and Culpepper2010). Fomesafen controls Palmer amaranth 80% to 98% at 50 d after planting (Barkley et al. Reference Barkley, Chaudhari, Jennings, Schultheis, Meyers and Monks2016). It has been observed that cereal rye and oat with any herbicide application reduced weeds better than preemergence + postemergence in the winter fallow, highlighting the utility of grass cover crops. A meta-analysis of studies conducted from 1990 to 2018 by Osipitan et al. (Reference Osipitan, Dille, Assefa, Radicetti, Ayeni and Knezevic2019) and other literature revealed the superiority of cereals as cover crops for weed suppression because of residue persistence and slower decomposition rate (Hayden et al. Reference Hayden, Brainard, Henshaw and Ngouajio2012; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, McClelland, Griffith, Bangarwa and Still2011). Furthermore, the results indicated that cover crops, except radish, when combined with any of the herbicide treatments resulted in significantly greater weed biomass reduction compared to winter fallow with either preemergence or postemergence herbicides.

Among the NT check of cover crops, cereal rye reduced relative weed biomass by 28% as a result of greater residue biomass. High-residue cover crops such as cereal rye and crimson clover effectively controlled weeds and sustained crop yield (Kumari et al. Reference Kumari, Price, Korres, Gamble and Li2023a, Reference Kumari, Price, Korres, Gamble and Li2023b, Reference Kumari, Price, Gamble, Li and Jacobson2024). Similarly, Norsworthy et al. (Reference Norsworthy, McClelland, Griffith, Bangarwa and Still2011) observed that cereal rye exhibited a 34% control of Palmer amaranth.

WREC. Sicklepod and Palmer amaranth were the dominant weeds. In the preemergence + postemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye, crimson clover, and cover crop mixture provided 96% to 98% relative weed biomass reduction (Figure 2B). With postemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye, and crimson clover achieved >90% relative weed biomass reduction, whereas winter fallow showed only 75% reduction. Glyphosate mixed with dicamba provided sicklepod control that was effective and more consistent (82% to 98%) 3 wk after application (Leon et al. Reference Leon, Ferrell and Sellers2016). Considering only preemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye and crimson clover showed a 77% to 79% reduction in relative weed biomass, surpassing all other cover crops. According to Wilcut et al. (Reference Wilcut, Jordan, Vencill and Richburg1997), pendimethalin was ineffective in controlling large-seeded and broadleaf weed species. Moreover, fomesafen does not offer sufficient full-season sicklepod control (Faircloth et al. Reference Faircloth, Patterson, Monks and Goodman2001). The results showed that all cover crops, except radish with only postemergence treatment, exhibited statistically similar weed biomass reduction compared to winter fallow with both preemergence and postemergence treatments. This result favors the adoption of cover crops utilizing a postemergence herbicide for sicklepod control, knowing that cover crops also provide other soil health benefits. A previous study also suggested that cover crops could replace preemergence herbicide application for controlling early-season weeds, whereas late-season weed species can be controlled using postemergence herbicide application as needed (Reddy et al. Reference Reddy, Zablotowicz, Locke and Koger2003). Among NT checks, cereal rye showed a 15% reduction in relative weed biomass, significantly greater than cover crop mixture (8%) and radish (1%). For season-long weed control in the absence of herbicide, the required cover crop biomass threshold use should be approximately 8,000 kg ha–1 (Mirsky et al. Reference Mirsky, Ryan, Teasdale, Curran, Reberg-Horton, Spargo, Wells, Keene and Moyer2013; Reberg-Horton et al. Reference Reberg-Horton, Grossman, Kornecki, Meijer, Price, Place and Webster2012).

EVS. Palmer amaranth was the dominant weed throughout the field. In preemergence + postemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, and cover crop mixture resulted in >98% relative weed biomass reduction, whereas winter fallow treatment showed only 73% (Figure 2C). Considering only postemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye and oat showed statistically greater relative weed biomass reduction (66% to 68%) than crimson clover (53%), radish (58%), and winter fallow (40%). In the case of only preemergence herbicide treatment, cereal rye performed better and effectively reduced weed biomass by 84%, whereas winter fallow showed only 55% reduction. The results indicate that cereal rye with preemergence herbicide application provided better weed biomass reduction than winter fallow with both preemergence + postemergence treatment. Previous research also stated that cereal rye effectively suppressed Palmer amaranth, with 83% less germination than winter fallow (Palhano et al. Reference Palhano, Norsworthy and Barber2018). In this study, clover, mixture, and oat with only preemergence herbicide treatment showed statistically similar weed biomass reduction compared with winter fallow combining both preemergence + postemergence treatment. If growers choose clover and cover crop mixture to gain additional soil benefits, such as N fixation, the use of preemergence application still provides similar Palmer amaranth control compared to fallow with both preemergence + postemergence applications. The management of Palmer amaranth poses challenges once it becomes established in the field because of its robust seedling growth, season-long emergence, rapid seed restoration in the soil, and ability to develop herbicide resistance (Jha and Norsworthy Reference Jha and Norsworthy2009; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Griffith, Griffin, Bagavathiannan and Gbur2014). Additionally, the reduced efficacy of weed control with postemergence treatment compared to preemergence suggests the presence of resistant Palmer amaranth at this site. Among NT checks of cover crops, all cover crops reduced the relative weed biomass in the range of 11% to 17% except radish (1%).

Cotton Lint Yield

TVREC. The overall effect of cover crop and herbicide was significant (P < 0.001). Among cover crops, cotton in cereal rye plots produced better lint yield (1,392 kg ha–1) compared to winter fallow (1,045 kg ha–1) (Figure 3A). Previous research conducted in Alabama found that cotton planted in cereal rye plots provided more yield benefits compared with winter fallow (Kumari et al. Reference Kumari, Price, Korres, Gamble and Li2023a). The cotton plots receiving both preemergence + postemergence herbicide applications showed the highest lint yield (1,726 kg ha–1) due to season-long weed control, which subsequently enhanced the yield (Figure 3B). The cotton produced the statistically lowest lint yield of 504 kg ha–1 following NT check.

Figure 3. The effect of cover crops and herbicides on lint yield at Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center. Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

WREC . Overall herbicide effect was significant (P < 0.001), whereas there was no cover crop effect (Figure 4A). The cotton plots treated with both preemergence and postemergence herbicides yielded 2,277 kg ha–1, and those treated with only postemergence herbicides yielded 1,900 kg ha–1. These yields were statistically higher than those of the cotton plots treated with only preemergence herbicides (838 kg ha–1) and the NT check (115 kg ha–1) (Figure 4B).

Figure 4. The effect of cover crops and herbicides on lint yield at Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station. Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

EVS. The overall effect of herbicide was found to be significant (P < 0.001), whereas no cover crop effect was observed (Figure 5A). The cotton plots that received both preemergence and postemergence herbicide applications achieved the highest lint yield of 860 kg ha–1 (Figure 5B). Cotton produced a lint yield of 768 kg ha–1 following the preemergence herbicide treatment, which was statistically greater than the yield from the postemergence-only treatment at 463 kg ha–1. The cotton plots produced the statistically lowest lint yield of 45 kg ha–1 following NT check. Aulakh et al. (Reference Aulakh, Price, Enloe, van Santen, Wehtje and Patterson2012) found that cotton plots treated with pendimethalin + fomesafen as preemergence herbicides resulted in a greater yield compared to the NT check in a cotton field infested with Palmer amaranth.

Figure 5. The effect of cover crops and herbicides on lint yield at E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center. Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

Practical Implications

High-residue cover crops such as cereal rye led to early-season weed suppression only. A combination of cover crops excluding radish, with either pendimethalin + fomesafen (preemergence), dicamba + glyphosate + S-metolachlor (postemergence), or preemergence followed by postemergence, provided greater relative weed biomass reduction than winter fallow with either herbicide treatment. Specifically, cereal rye, crimson clover, oat, and cover crop mixture when treated with pendimethalin + fomesafen (preemergence) followed by dicamba + glyphosate + S-metolachlor (postemergence) herbicides, provided excellent weed control throughout the cotton growing season compared to radish and winter fallow plots.

Integration of suggested high-residue cover crops into herbicide regimes in conservation tillage cotton not only is a better weed management approach but also provides other soil health benefits in the southern United States. Future research should include other herbicide programs with cover crops under different management practices such as crop rotation to provide more options to growers for weed control recommendations.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Mr. James Bonnell, USDA ARS NSDL Technician, and staff at the E.V. Smith, Wiregrass, and Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Centers for their technical assistance. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing Interests

The author(s) declare none.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Daniel Stephenson, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center

References

Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Enloe, SF, van Santen, E, Wehtje, G, Patterson, MG (2012) Integrated Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton: I. Soil-inversion, high-residue cover crops and herbicide regimes. Agron J 2:295311 Google Scholar
Barkley, SL, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Fomesafen programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 30:506515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunchek, JM, Wallace, JM, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA, VanGessel, MJ, Scott, BA (2020) Alternative performance targets for integrating cover crops as a proactive herbicide-resistance management tool. Weed Sci 68:534544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Mendiburu, P (2022) agricolae: statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package version 1.3-7. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/agricolae/index.html. Accessed: April 26, 2024Google Scholar
Dabney, SM, Delgado, JA, Reeves, DW (2001) Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 32:12211250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faircloth, WH, Patterson, MG, Monks, CD, Goodman, WR (2001) Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 15:544551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, AV, Mortensen, DA, Allen, MK (2017) The state of the cover crop nation and how to set realistic future goals for the popular conservation practice. J Soil Water Conserv 72:111A115A CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, ZD, Brainard, DC, Henshaw, B, Ngouajio, M (2012) Winter annual weed suppression in rye–vetch cover crop mixtures. Weed Technol 26:818825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2023) The International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: June 10, 2023).Google Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK (2009). Soybean canopy and tillage effects on emergence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from a natural seed bank. Weed Sci 57:644651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B, Young, B, Matthews, J, Marquardt, P, Slack, C, Bradley, K, York, A, Culpepper, S, Hager, A, Al-Khatib, K, Steckel, L, Moechnig, M, Loux, M, Bernards, M, Smeda, R (2010) Weed control in dicamba-resistant soybeans. Crop Manag 9:123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumari, A, Price, A J, Gamble, A, Li, S, Jacobson, A (2024). Integrating cover crops and herbicides for weed control in soybean. Weed Technol 38:e38. doi: 10.1017/wet.2024.24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumari, A, Price, AJ, Korres, NE, Gamble, A, Li, S (2023a) Influence of a cereal rye cover crop on the critical period for weed control in soybean. Weed Technol 37:2533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumari, A, Price, AJ, Korres, NE, Gamble, A, Li, S (2023b) Effect of crimson clover on the critical period of weed control in conservation tillage corn. Front Agron 4:1068365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, RG, Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA (2016) Seed production and control of sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate combinations. Weed Technol 30:7684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Ryan, MR, Teasdale, JR, Curran, WS, Reberg-Horton, SC, Spargo, JT, Wells, MS, Keene, CL, Moyer, JW (2013) Overcoming weed management challenges in cover crop–based organic rotational no-till soybean production in the eastern United States. Weed Technol 27:193203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, G, Griffin, T, Bagavathiannan, M, Gbur, EE (2014) In-field movement of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and its impact on cotton lint yield: evidence supporting a zero-threshold strategy. Weed Sci 62:237249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, McClelland, M, Griffith, G, Bangarwa, SK, Still, J (2011). Evaluation of cereal and Brassicaceae cover crops in conservation-tillage, enhanced, glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 25:613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipitan, OA, Dille, JA, Assefa, Y, Knezevic, SZ (2018) Cover crop for early season weed suppression in crops: systematic review and meta-analysis. Agron J 110:22112221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipitan, OA, Dille, JA, Assefa, Y, Radicetti, E, Ayeni, A, Knezevic, SZ (2019) Impact of cover crop management on level of weed suppression: a meta-analysis. Crop Sci 59:833842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018) Cover crops suppression of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 32:6065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66:265275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Duzy, LM, Kelton, JA (2012) Herbicide and cover crop residue integration for Amaranthus control in conservation agriculture cotton and implications for resistance management. Weed Technol 26:490498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Reeves, DW, Patterson, MG (2006) Evaluation of weed control provided by three winter cereals in conservation-tillage soybean. Renew Agric Food Syst 21:159164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raper, RL (2007) In-row subsoilers that reduce soil compaction and residue disturbance. Applied Eng Agric 23:253258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reberg-Horton, SC, Grossman, JM, Kornecki, TS, Meijer, AD, Price, AJ, Place, GT, Webster, TM (2012) Utilizing cover crop mulches to reduce tillage in organic systems in the southeastern USA. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:4148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Zablotowicz, RM, Locke, MA, Koger, CH (2003) Cover crop, tillage, and herbicide effects on weeds, soil properties, microbial populations, and soybean yield. Weed Sci 51:987994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saini, M, Price, AJ, van Santen, E (2006) Cover crop residue effects on early-season weed establishment in a conservation-tillage corn–cotton rotation. Pages 175–178 in Proceedings of the 28th Southern Conservation Tillage Systems Conference. Bushland, TXGoogle Scholar
Sainju, UM, Singh, BP (1997) Winter cover crops for sustainable agricultural systems: influence on soil properties, water quality, and crop yields. Hort Sci 32:2128 Google Scholar
Schomberg, HH, McDaniel, RG, Mallard, E, Endale, DM, Fisher, DS, Cabrera, ML (2006) Conservation tillage and cover crop influences on cotton production on a southeastern US coastal plain soil. Agron J 98:12471256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturm, DJ, Peteinatos, G, Gerhards, R (2018) Contribution of allelopathic effects to the overall weed suppression by different cover crops. Weed Res 58:331337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Mohler, CL (2000) The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci 48:385392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, MG, Soltani, N, Hooker, DC, Robinson, DE, Vink, JP, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2017) Benefit of tank mixing dicamba with glyphosate applied after emergence for weed control in dicamba and glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can J Plant Sci 97:891901 Google Scholar
Vulchi, R, Bagavathiannan, M, Nolte, SA (2022) History of herbicide-resistant traits in cotton in the U.S. and the importance of integrated weed management for technology stewardship. Plants (Basel) 11:1189. doi: 10.3390/plants11091189 Google ScholarPubMed
Wallace, JM, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA (2019) Cover crop effects on horseweed (Erigeron canadensis) density and size inequality at the time of herbicide exposure. Weed Sci 67:327338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallander, S, Smith, D, Bowman, M, Claassen, R (2021) Cover crop trends, programs, and practices in the United States. Economic Research Service, USDA. http://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.309562. Accessed: December 10, 2023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Nichols, RL (2012). Changes in the prevalence of weed species in the major agronomic crops of the Southern United States: 1994/1995 to 2008/2009. Weed Sci 60:145157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Jordan, DL, Vencill, WK, Richburg, JS (1997) Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol 11:221226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Cover crop biomass production at Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center (A), Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station (B), E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center (C). Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Interaction of cover crops and herbicides on relative weed biomass reduction at Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center (A), Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station (B), E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center (C). Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

Figure 2

Figure 3. The effect of cover crops and herbicides on lint yield at Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center. Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

Figure 3

Figure 4. The effect of cover crops and herbicides on lint yield at Wiregrass Research and Experimental Station. Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.

Figure 4

Figure 5. The effect of cover crops and herbicides on lint yield at E.V. Smith Research and Extension Center. Means followed by the different Tukey letters showed a significant effect at significance level of 0.05. PRE, preemergence; POST, postemergence; NT, no treatment.