Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T03:08:03.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Economic Analysis of Incorporation Methods for Preplant Herbicides on Clay Loam Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ellis W. Chenault
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., U.S. Dep. Agric. Conservation and Production
Allen F. Wiese
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., U.S. Dep. Agric. Conservation and Production
Wyatte L. Harman
Affiliation:
Drawer 10, Bushland, TX 79012

Abstract

In order to find the most effective and economical method of incorporation, six preplant herbicides for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) were incorporated with a tandem disk or field cultivator, or sprayed on unbedded soil prior to bedding with a disk bedder. These treatments were compared to incorporating sprayed beds with a rolling cultivator and no incorporation. A mixed population of pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACH and Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMARE) was present each year. There was no significant difference in pigweed control among incorporation with a disk, field cultivator, or rolling cultivator. Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris # TRBTE) and barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCG] were controlled best following rolling cultivator incorporation. Cotton lint yields were not affected by incorporation methods or herbicides. Economic analysis and weed control indicate that the field cultivator was the best way of incorporation.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Anderson, W. P., Richards, A. B., and Whitworth, J. W. 1968. Leaching of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin in soil columns. Weed Sci. 16:165169.Google Scholar
2. Bardsley, C. E., Savage, K. E., and Walker, J. C. 1968. Trifluralin behavior in soil. II. Volatilization as influenced by concentration, time, soil moisture, and placement. Agron. J. 60:8992.Google Scholar
3. Barrentine, W. L., Wooten, O. B., and Williford, J. R. 1979. Effect of incorporation methods and time of application on the performance of trifluralin plus metribuzin. Weed Sci. 27:6468.Google Scholar
4. Bode, L. E. and Gebhardt, M. R. 1969. Equipment for incorporation of herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:551555.Google Scholar
5. Helling, C. S. 1976. Dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. J. Environ. Qual. 5:115.Google Scholar
6. Klingman, G. C. and Ashton, F. M. 1975. Weed science principles and practices. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 82 pp.Google Scholar
7. McWhorter, C. G. and Wooten, O. B. 1961. The use of fluorescent tracers to study distribution of soil-applied herbicides. Weeds 9:4249.Google Scholar
8. Parochetti, J. V. and Hein, E. R. 1973. Volatility and photodecomposition of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 22:469473.Google Scholar
9. Wiese, A. F., Chenault, E. W., and Hudspeth, E. B. 1969. Incorporation of preplant herbicides for cotton. Weed Sci. 17:481483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wright, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1965. Photo-chemical decomposition of trifluralin. Weed Sci. 13:329331.Google Scholar