Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:21:34.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence Weed Control in a Conservation Tillage Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Cropping System on Sandy Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Wayne Keeling  and
John R. Abernathy
J. Wayne Keeling
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
John R. Abernathy
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were established on a loamy fine sand to evaluate weed control in a conservation tillage system where cotton was planted into sorghum stubble. Preemergence herbicides for Palmer amaranth and volunteer sorghum control in cotton included methazole, dipropetryn, prometryn, metolachlor, and metolachlor plus dipropetryn or prometryn. Dipropetryn controlled both weeds without crop injury. Above 1.7 kg ai/ha, methazole provided effective control but injured the crop. Prometryn was less effective than dipropetryn or methazole against Palmer amaranth and controlled <40% volunteer sorghum. Metolachlor unacceptably injured cotton. Cotton yields were excellent when both weeds were controlled.

Keywords

Dipropetryn, 6-(ethylthio)-N,N′-bis(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diaminemethazole, 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl) 4-methyl-12, 4-oxadiazolidine-3,5 dionemetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methyl-ethyl) acetamideprometryn, N,N′-bis(1-methylethyl)-6-(methylthio)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diaminecotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.)Moench.Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. #3 AMAPANo-till cottonPalmer amaranthvolunteer sorghum
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 182 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Brown, S. M., and Whitwell, T. 1985. Weed control programs for minimum-tillage cotton. Weed Sci. 33:843–847.Google Scholar
2. 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.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
4. Federal Register, Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary. 1986. Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation; Final Rule and Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact. 7 CFR. Part 12, Vol. 52, No. 180, p. 35194–35208.Google Scholar
5. Kapusta, G., and Strieker, C. F. 1976. Herbicidal weed control in no-till planted corn. Weed Sci. 24:605–611.Google Scholar
6. Patterson, M., and Monks, D. 1987. Report of the 1986 cotton weed loss committee. p. 361–363. Proc. 1987 Beltwide Cotton Prod. Conf., Nat. Cotton Conc., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
7. Robinson, E. L., Langdale, G. W., and Stuedemann, J. A. 1984. Effects of three weed control regimes on no-till and tilled soybeans. Weed Sci. 32:17–19.Google Scholar
8. 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. Weed Sci. 32:95–100.Google Scholar
9. Wicks, G. A., and Grabowski, P. H. 1986. Weed control in no-till sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 34:577–581.Google Scholar