Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T11:38:28.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessment of New Herbicide Programs for Cowpea Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

Christopher E. Rouse
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Nilda Roma-Burgos*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Leopoldo E. Estorninos Jr.
Affiliation:
Program Associate (retired), Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Teal M. Penka
Affiliation:
Former: Graduate Student, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nilda Roma-Burgos, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704. (E-mail: nburgos@uark.edu)

Abstract

Cowpea is a major specialty crop in the southern US. In recent years, no new herbicide programs have been evaluated for cowpea despite additional herbicide registrations. Studies were conducted from 2014 to 2016 at Fayetteville and Kibler, Arkansas to assess new herbicide programs for cowpea production. The herbicide programs included: three commercial standard programs; fomesafen (PPL, 0.21 kgha−1)-, flumioxazin (PPL, 0.21 kgha−1)-, and halosulfuron (PPL, 0.054 kgha−1)-based programs with or without S-metolachlor (1.12 kgha−1) fb imazethapyr (0.07 kgha−1); and two sets of sulfentrazone (PPL/PRE)-based programs applied alone (0.21 kgha−1) or as a pre-mixture with carfentrazone (0.11 kgha−1+0.01 kgha−1) with or without S-metolachlor (1.12 kgha−1). The sulfentrazone-based programs included POST applications of imazethapyr fb sethoxydim (0.32 kgha−1) or fluthiacet-methyl (0.0067 kgha−1) and sethoxydim as necessary. In 2014 and 2015, crop stand loss was minimal and crop injury was generally low (<20%). Weed control from sulfentrazone- and flumioxazin-based programs was excellent (>90%). In 2016, with heavy rainfall around planting time, sulfentrazone-containing programs reduced cowpea yield 45% to 60%. Flumioxazin-based programs caused >85% injury at Kibler early-season, which lasted until harvest. Heavy rainfall also reduced efficacy of residual herbicides. In general, the sulfentrazone- and flumioxazin-based treatments consistently yielded similar to the weed-free controls. The majority of the programs had <60% weed control in Fayetteville early in the season. POST herbicides improved weed control to >90% in most treatments. Palmer amaranth and annual grass control was generally better in Kibler, with >80% control at harvest. Sulfentrazone is registered for cowpea and is effective on Palmer amaranth, but growers need to be careful about where and when to use it. Flumioxazin should be considered for registration in cowpea once its use pattern and location-specific recommendations are well defined.

Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

a

current: Agronomist, Syngenta, Junction City, KS, USA.

References

Blackshaw, RE, Molnar, LJ, Muendel, H-H, Saindon, G, Li, X (2000) Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) . Weed Technol 14:327336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgos, NR, Brandenberger, LP, Stiers, EN, Shivrain, VK, Motes, DR, Wells, L, Eaton, S, Martin, LW, Morelock, TE (2007) Tolerance of selected advanced cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) breeding lines to fomesafen. Weed Technol 21:863868 Google Scholar
Burnside, O, Weins, M, Holder, B, Weisberg, S, Ristau, E, Johnson, M, Cameron, J (1998) Critical periods for weed control in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) . Weed Sci 46:301306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, FE, Owens, DK, Tranel, PJ, Preston, C, Duke, SO (2014) Evolution of resistance to phytoene desaturase and protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors - state of knowledge. Pest Manag Sci 70:13581366 Google Scholar
Dirks, JT, Johnson, WG, Smeda, RJ, Wiebold, WJ, Massey, RE (2000) Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci 48:628639 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017) International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: June 8, 2017Google Scholar
Kemble, J ed. (2016) Chemical weed control for southern peas. Page 272 in 2016 Vegetable Crop Handbook for Southeastern United States. 17th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Farm Journal MediaGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R, Kapusta, G, Matthews, J (1998) Sulfentrazone for weed control in soybean (Glycine max) . Weed Technol 12:684689 Google Scholar
Leblanc, ML, Cloutier, D (2001) Susceptibility of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, cranberry bean) to the rotary hoe. Weed Technol 15:224228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, JW, Johnson, WG (2001) Weed management with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soyabean (Glycine max) . Crop Prot 20:215220 Google Scholar
Salas, RA, Burgos, NR, Tranel, PJ, Singh, S, Glasgow, L, Scott, RC, Nichols, RL (2016) Resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicide in Palmer amaranth from Arkansas. Pest Manag Sci 72:864869 Google Scholar
Scott, B (2017) MP44 Recommended Chemicals for weed and brush control. Little Rock, AR: Univ Arkansas Coop Ext ServGoogle Scholar
Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2003) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145150 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2014) Response of dry bean to sulfentrazone plus imazethapyr. Int J Agron 2014 Google Scholar
Swantek, J, SNeller, C, Oliver, L (1998) Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance on JSTOR. Weed Sci 46:271277 Google Scholar
USDA NASS (2017) Crop Production- 2016 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R, Miller, S (1991) Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol 5:2226 Google Scholar
Wilson, RG (2005) Response of dry bean and weeds to fomesafen and fomesafen tank mixtures. Weed Technol 19:201206 Google Scholar
Wuerffel, RJ, Young, JM, Matthews, JL, Young, BG (2015) Characterization of PPO-inhibitor–resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) response to soil-applied PPO-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 63:511521 Google Scholar