Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:40:57.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economics of Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David C. Bridges  and
Robert H. Walker
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. AAES J. No. 3-861074
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849. AAES J. No. 3-861074
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted from 1979 through 1982 in east-central Alabama to determine the effect of various cropping and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L. # CASOB) management systems on yields and total net returns to land and management. Intense weed management inputs resulted in higher levels of sicklepod control than did standard inputs with spring tillage, but sicklepod control was good regardless of management intensity with no spring tillage. Sicklepod control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] – corn (Zea mays L.) rotations was similar to that in continuous soybeans regardless of planting method. Even though intense management inputs often resulted in increased sicklepod control, total net returns from these systems were often less due to increased herbicide and application costs. Total net returns from summer-fallow systems were generally low since only a winter wheat crop was produced each year.

Keywords

Thresholdsmanagement systemsGlycine maxZea maysTriticum aestivumCASOB
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 1987 , pp. 594 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Banks, P. A., Tripp, T. N., Wells, J. W., and Hammel, J. E. 1985. Effects of tillage on sicklepod interference with soybeans and soil water use. Weed Sci. 34:143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1985. Influence of weed management and cropping systems on sicklepod seed in the soil. Weed Sci. 33:800–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1964. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts. Weed Sci. 32:584–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Currey, W. L., Teem, D. H., and Jordan, J. H. 1981. Sicklepod competition and control programs in Florida soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:66.Google Scholar
5. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Whitwell, T., Walker, R. H., Jolley, E. R., Thurlow, D. L., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Sicklepod control in soybeans with herbicides, row widths, and planting dates. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:62.Google Scholar