Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T00:44:30.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Ultra Narrow Row Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Stanley Culpepper  and
Alan C. York
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620, E-mail address: stanley@arches.uga.edu
Alan C. York*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: alan_york@ncsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New weed management tools and growth regulators make production of ultra narrow row (UNR) cotton possible. Weed control, cotton yield, fiber quality, and net returns were compared in UNR bromoxynil-resistant, glyphosate-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton. Weeds included broadleaf signalgrass, carpetweed, common cocklebur, common lambsquarters, common ragweed, goosegrass, jimsonweed, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, sicklepod, smooth pigweed, and tall morningglory. Pendimethalin preplant incorporated (PPI) in conventional-tillage or preemergence (PRE) in no-till systems plus fluometuron PRE did not adequately control many of these weeds. Pyrithiobac plus MSMA early postemergence (POST) often was more effective than pyrithiobac alone. Pendimethalin plus fluometuron at planting followed by pyrithiobac plus MSMA early POST controlled sicklepod 82%, goosegrass 89%, Palmer amaranth 92%, and the other species at least 95% late season. Pyrithiobac at mid-POST did not improve control. Bromoxynil plus MSMA early POST was more effective than bromoxynil alone only on sicklepod. Pendimethalin plus fluometuron at planting followed by bromoxynil plus MSMA early POST controlled sicklepod 62%, Palmer amaranth 81%, goosegrass 83%, and all other species at least 95%. Glyphosate early POST did not adequately control many species due to sustained weed emergence. Glyphosate early POST followed by glyphosate late POST (after last effective bloom date) controlled all species except pitted morningglory and tall morningglory at least 93%. Pendimethalin plus fluometuron followed by glyphosate early POST was the most effective glyphosate system overall, and it controlled sicklepod 88%, pitted morningglory 90%, and other species at least 93%. Glyphosate late POST did not increase control in systems with pendimethalin plus fluometuron at planting followed by glyphosate early POST. Yields and net returns were similar with all herbicide/cultivar systems at two of five locations. At other locations, yields and net returns were similar with systems of pendimethalin plus fluometuron at planting followed by pyrithiobac plus MSMA early POST, pendimethalin plus fluometuron followed by bromoxynil plus MSMA early POST, and glyphosate early POST. Greatest yields and net returns were obtained with pendimethalin plus fluometuron at planting followed by glyphosate early POST. Herbicide systems did not affect fiber quality.

Keywords

Bromoxynil, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrileglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineMSMA, monosodium methanearsonatecarpetweed, Mollugo verticillata L. # MOLVEcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. # DATSTpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHBromoxynil-resistant cottoncotton yieldfiber qualityglyphosate-resistant cottontransgenic herbicide-resistant cottonPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceUNR, ultra narrow rowWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 19 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Department of Agronomy, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793.

References

Literature Cited

Atwell, S. D. 1996. Influence of ultra narrow row on cotton growth and development. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. January 9-12, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. p. 1187.Google Scholar
Atwell, S., Perkins, R., Guice, B., Stewart, W., Harden, J., and Odeneal, T. 1996. Essential steps to successful ultra narrow row cotton production. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. January 9-12, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 1210–1211.Google Scholar
Board, J. E., Kamal, M., and Harville, B. G. 1992. Temporal importance of greater light interception to increased yield in narrow-row soybean. Agron. J. 84: 575–579.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B., Cole, T. L., and Alphin, J. 1998a. Ultra narrow row cotton: economic evaluation of 1996 BASF field plots. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Diego, CA. January 5-9, 1998. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 88–91.Google Scholar
Brown, B., Cole, T., and Edmisten, K. 1998b. Ultra narrow row cotton. In North Carolina Farm Enterprise Budget Guidelines. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. p. 98.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 1996. Bromoxynil and pyrithiobac combinations with MSMA for sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:5.Google Scholar
Burmester, C. H. 1996. Status of ultra narrow row research in the Southeast. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. January 9-12, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 67–68.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr., and York, A. C. 1987a. Interaction of fluometuron and MSMA with sethoxydim and fluazifop. Weed Sci. 35: 270–276.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr., and York, A. C. 1987b. Annual grass control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with fluazifop, sethoxydim, and selected dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 35: 388–394.Google Scholar
Costello, R. W., Griffin, J. L., Leonard, B. R., and Miller, D. K. 1998. Staple and insecticide combinations: insect and weed control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:56.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in no-tillage bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11: 335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4: 174–185.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L. 1999. The cotton plant. In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 1999 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 7–17.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. T. Jr., Murdock, E. C., Bauer, P. J., Toler, J. E., Keeton, A., and Curtis, C. E. Jr. 1998. Weed control in ultra narrow row Roundup Ready™ cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:50.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Toxicology and environmental properties of glyphosate. In Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. American Chemical Society Monogr. 189. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 103–137.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., and Derting, C. W. 1996. How does Roundup Ready™ cotton compare to Staple™, DSMA, and Buctril-BXN™ cotton? In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. January 9-12, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. p. 1531.Google Scholar
Heitholt, J. J., Pettigrew, W. T., and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1992. Light interception and lint yield of narrow-row cotton. Crop Sci. 32: 728–733.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M., York, A. C., Culpepper, A. S., and Batts, R. B. 1998. Staple/MSMA combinations for sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control in cotton. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Diego, CA. January 5-9, 1998. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 843–844.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1998. Monosodium methanearsonate influence on broadleaf weed control with selected post-emergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci. 1: 69–72.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993a. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7: 196–201.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993b. Influence of application rate and timing on efficacy of DPX-PE350 applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 7: 216–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalaher, C. J., Coble, H. D., and York, A. C. 1997. Morphological effects of Roundup application timings on Roundup-Ready® cotton. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, New Orleans, LA. January 6-10, 1997. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. p. 780.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, R. D. 1992. Review of the 1991 field trial results on bromoxynil-tolerant cotton. In Herber, D. J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, Nashville, TN. January 7-10, 1991. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. p. 1316.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Wilson, C. F., and Milligan, J. L. 1998. Weed control in BXN cotton with Buctril/Staple combinations and sequential applications. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:54.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. R. C. 1993. Narrow row cotton: economics and history. In Herber, J. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Production Research Conferences, New Orleans, LA. January 10-14, 1993. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 133–135.Google Scholar
Sasser, P. E. 1981. The basics of high volume instruments for fiber testing. In Brown, J. M., ed. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, New Orleans, LA. January 4-8, 1981. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 191–193.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of several morningglory species (Ipomoea sp.) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 42: 227–232.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel-Dekker. pp. 343–400.Google Scholar