Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:39:36.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of cover-crop biomass, strip-tillage residue disturbance width, and PRE herbicide placement on cotton weed control, yield, and economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2021

Andrew J. Price Open the ORCID record for Andrew J. Price [Opens in a new window] ,
Robert L. Nichols ,
Trent A. Morton ,
Kipling S. Balkcom ,
Timothy L. Grey  and
Steve Li
Andrew J. Price*
Affiliation:
Plant Physiologist, Agricultural Research Technician, and Agronomist, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Auburn, AL, USA
Robert L. Nichols
Affiliation:
Research Director, Cotton Incorporated, Cary, NC, USA
Trent A. Morton
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Technician, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Auburn, AL, USA
Kipling S. Balkcom
Affiliation:
Agronomist, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Auburn, AL, USA
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
Steve Li
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Auburn University, Auburn, ALUSA.
*
Author for correspondence: Andrew Price, Plant Physiologist, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL36832. (Email: andrew.price@usda.gov)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservation tillage adoption continues to be threatened by glyphosate and acetolactate synthase–resistant Palmer amaranth and other troublesome weeds. Field experiments were conducted from autumn 2010 through crop harvest in 2013 at two locations in Alabama to evaluate the effect of integrated management practices on weed control and seed cotton yield in glyphosate-resistant cotton. The effects of a cereal rye cover crop using high- or low-biomass residue, followed by wide or narrow within-row strip tillage and three PRE herbicide regimens were evaluated. The three PRE regimens were (1) pendimethalin at 0.84 kg ae ha−1 plus fomesafen at 0.28 kg ai ha−1 applied broadcast, (2) pendimethalin plus fomesafen applied banded on the row, or (3) no PRE. Each PRE treatment was followed by (fb) glyphosate (1.12 kg ae ha−1) applied POST fb layby applications of diuron (1.12 kg ai ha−1) plus monosodium methanearsonate (2.24 kg ai ha−1). Low-residue plots ranged in biomass from 85 to 464 kg ha−1, and high-biomass residue plots ranged from 3,119 to 6,929 kg ha−1. In most comparisons, surface disturbance width, residue amount, and soil-applied herbicide placement did not influence within-row weed control; however, broadcast PRE resulted in increased carpetweed, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, tall morning-glory, and yellow nutsedge weed control in row middles compared with plots receiving banded PRE. In addition, high-residue plots had increased carpetweed, common purslane, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, sicklepod, and tall morning-glory weed control between rows. Use of banded PRE herbicides resulted in equivalent yield and revenue in four of six comparisons compared with those with broadcast PRE herbicide application; however, this would likely result in many between-row weed escapes. Thus, conservation tillage cotton would benefit from broadcast soil-applied herbicide applications regardless of residue amount and tillage width when infested with Palmer amaranth and other troublesome weed species.

Keywords

Diuronfomesafenglyphosatemonosodium methanearsonatependimethalincarpetweedMollugo verticillata L. MOVEcommon purslanePortulaca oleracea L. POOLlarge crabgrassDigitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DISAPalmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. Watson AMPAsicklepodSenna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin & Barneby SEOB4tall morning-glory Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth IPPU2yellow nutsedgeCyperus esculentus L. CYEScereal ryeSecale cereal L.cottonGossypium hirsutum L.Conservation tillageintegrated weed managementPalmer amaranthresistance management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 385 - 393
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States.
Copyright
© USDA-ARS National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

Associate Editor: Daniel Stephenson, Louisana State University Agricultural Center

References

Ashford, DL, Reeves, DW (2003) Use of a mechanical roller-crimper as an alternative kill method for cover crops. American J Alt Agric 18:37–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS (2011) Weed management and cotton yield under two row spacings, conventional and conservation tillage systems utilizing conventional, glufosinate-, and glyphosate-based weed management systems. Weed Technol 25:542–547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Price, AJ, Enloe, SF, van Santen, E, Wehtje, G, Patterson, MG (2012) Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton: I. Tillage system, cover crops and herbicide management. Weed Management and Herbicide Resistance Special Issue. Agronomy 2:295–311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Saini, M, Price, AJ, Faircloth, WH, van Santen, E, Wehtje, GR, Kelton, JA (2015) Herbicide and rye cover crop residue integration affect weed control and yield in strip-tillage peanut. Peanut Sci 42:30–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, DA (1992) Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci 40:654–659 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, P, Robinson, E (1982) The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci 30:164–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balkcom, KS, Price, AJ, van Santen, E, Delaney, DP, Boykin, DL, Arriaga, FJ, Bergtold, JS, Kornecki, TS, Raper, RL (2010) Row spacing, tillage system, and herbicide technology affects cotton plant growth and yield. Field Crops Res 117:219–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC (2019) Weed management in cotton. NCSU Cooperative Extension Publication. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/cotton-information/weed-management-in-cotton. Accessed: December 2020Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, S, Kichler, J, Sosnoskie, L (2020) University of Georgia programs for controlling moderate to severe populations of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in cotton. https://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/handle/10724/12224. Accessed: December 2020Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, MacRae, AW, Kichler, J, Whitaker, J, Davis, AL (2007) Managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in conventional and strip-till Roundup Ready cotton. Pages 1230–1231 in: Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX. 4–8 January 2007. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Derpsch, R, Roth, CH, Sidiras, N, Köpke, U (1991) Erosion control in Paraná, Brazil: soil cover systems, no-tillage and soil conservation. Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH; SP 245Google Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38 in: Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Hand, L, Nichols, RL, Webster, T, Culpepper, S (2019). Cereal rye cover crop and herbicide application method impacts cotton stand, Palmer amaranth control, and cotton yield. Weed Technol 33:794–799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Index Mundi (2020) Commodity prices > cotton. https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=cotton. Accessed: September 2020+cotton.+https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=cotton.+Accessed:+September+2020>Google Scholar
Kornecki, TS, Raper, RL, Arriaga, FJ, Schwab, EB, Bergtold, JS (2009) Impact of rye rolling direction and different no-till row-cleaners on cotton emergence and yield. Trans ASABE 52:383–391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK (2015) Influence of a rye cover crop on the critical period for weed control in cotton. Weed Sci 63:346–352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, MM, Dobbels, AF, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Young, BG, Spaunhorst, DJ, Norsworthy, JK, Palhano, M, Steckel, LE (2017) Influence of cover crops on management of Amaranthus species in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 31:487–495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DM, Ryan, MR, Shumway, DL (2011) Timing of cover crop management effects on seed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller-crimper. Weed Sci 59:380–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[MSU] Mississippi State University (2018) Cotton 2018 planning budgets. Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University. Publication 3168. http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/publications/cotton-2018-planning-budgets. Accessed: December 2020Google Scholar
[NOAA-UNL] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2020) U.S. drought monitor. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx. Accessed: September 2020Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, RL (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, McClelland, M, Griffith, G, Bangarwa, SK, Still, J (2011) Evaluation of cereal and Brassicaceae cover crops in conservation-tillage, enhanced, glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 25:6–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2017) Cover crops suppression of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in cotton. Weed Technol 32:60–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, TL, Truman, CC, Strickland, TC, Bosch, DD, Webster, TM (2008) Herbicide incorporation by irrigation and tillage impact on runoff loss. J Environ Qual 37:839–847 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation agriculture. J Soil Water Conserv 66:265–275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Korres, N, Norsworthy, JS, Li, S (2018) Influence of a cereal rye cover crop and conservation tillage on the critical weed free period in cotton. Weed Technol 32:683–690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Monks, CD, Culpepper, AS, Duzy, LM, Kelton, JA, Marshall, MW, Steckel, LE, Sosnoskie, LM, Nichols, RL (2016a) High residue cover crops alone or with strategic tillage to manage glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in southeastern cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J Soil Water Cons 71:1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Reeves, DW, Patterson, MG (2006) Evaluation of weed control provided by three winter cereals in conservation-tillage soybean. Renewable Agric Food Sys 21:159–164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Reeves, DW, Patterson, MG, Gamble, BE, Balkcom, KS, Arriaga, FJ, Monks, CD (2007) Weed control in peanut in a high residue conservation-tillage system. Peanut Sci 34:59–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Saini, M, van Santen, E, Sarunaite, L (2016b) Cover-crop residue amount influences weed suppression, In: Abdurakhmonov, IY (ed.) Cotton Research. Rijeka, Croatia: IntechOpen. https://www.intechopen.com/books/cotton-research/cover-crop-management-influences-residue-biomass-and-subsequent-weed-suppression-in-a-conservation-a. Accessed: February 8, 20201Google Scholar
Reeves, DW, Price, AJ, Patterson, MG (2005) Evaluation of three winter cereals for weed control in conservation-tillage non-transgenic cotton. Weed Technol 19:731–736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, MR, Curran, WS, Grantham, AM, Hunsberger, LK, Mirsky, SB, Mortensen, DA, Nord, EA, Wilson, DO (2011) Effects of seeding rate and poultry litter on weed suppression from a rolled cereal rye cover crop. Weed Sci 59:438–444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, AN, Reberg-Horton, SC, Place, GT, Meijer, AD, Arellano, C, Mueller, JP (2011) Rolled rye mulch for weed suppression in organic no-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci 59:224–231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K, Bond, J, Eubank, T, Scott, RC (2019) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth and ryegrass management. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet MP479. https://www.uaex.edu/publications/PDF/MP479.pdf. Accessed: December 2020Google Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Mohler, CL (2000) The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci 48:385–392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019) Quick stats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed: December 2020Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L (2016) 2016 Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits & vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2016-Weed-Survey_Broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: December 2020Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2005) Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 58:291–304 Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Cardina, J, White, AD (2003) Weed seed rain, soil seedbanks, and seedling recruitment in no-tillage crop rotations. Weed Sci 51:569–575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Coble, HD (1997) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) management in corn (Zea mays) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) rotations. Weed Technol 11:543–548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. Weed Technol 25:183–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, AM, Grey, TL, Prostko, EP, Vencill, WK, Webster, TM (2009) Establishing the geographical distribution and level of acetolactate synthase resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions in Georgia. Weed Technol 23:214–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar