Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T15:56:22.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Herbicides and Crop Rotation on Weed Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

C. H. Tingle  and
J. M. Chandler
C. H. Tingle*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, Box 391, Little Rock, AR 72203
J. M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ctingle@uaex.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 1998 through 2000 to determine the influence of crop rotation and level of herbicide system for johnsongrass, entireleaf morningglory, and smellmelon control in glyphosate-resistant cotton and corn. Three different crop rotation schedules were used including cotton–cotton–cotton, cotton–corn–cotton, and corn–cotton–corn. Herbicide systems involving various degrees of input levels (low, medium, and high) were compared with a conventional standard program. In 1998, weed control ranged from 80 to 95% for all herbicide systems when the rotation was corn–cotton–corn. In 1999 and 2000, the low-input herbicide system controlled entireleaf morningglory 76 to 78% late in the season. Decreased smellmelon control (78%) was also observed with the conventional standard during this same period. In the cotton–corn–cotton rotation, late-season entireleaf morningglory control decreased each year in the low-input system, regardless of crop. In 2000, late-season evaluations indicated lower weed control of all three species with the conventional standard program compared with the other input systems. Yield data from 2000 suggested that corn and seed cotton yields were influenced by crop rotation.

Keywords

Glyphosateentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray #3 IPOHEjohnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers., # SORHAsmellmelon, Cucumis melo var. dudaim Naud. # CUMMDcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DK 580RR’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DPL 5690RR’Entireleaf morninggloryjohnsongrassreduced herbicide inputssmellmelonweed control systemsDAT, days after treatmentEPOST, early postemergenceLAYBY, laybyLPOST, late postemergencePD, postemergence-directedPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 940 - 946
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Buchanan, G. A. 1981. Management of weeds in cotton. in Pimentel, D., ed. CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. Volume III. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 215–242.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1992. Trends in weed control methods. in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwick, R. F., Corley, T. E., Cannon, M. D., Frtral, J. G., Thomas, C. H., Carter, L. M., and Wooten, O. B. 1960. Weed Control Equipment and Methods for Mechanized Cotton Production. Starkville, MS: Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station. South. Coop. Series Bull. 71. 48 p.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci 4:174–185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, J. E. and Chandler, J. M. 1979. Herbicide-crop rotation for johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Sci. 27:479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of postemergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res 35:311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci. 47:729–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C., Hauser, E. W., and Johnson, A. W. 1974. Crop-herbicide sequences on a Southeastern Coastal Plain soil. Weed Sci. 22:500–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Zik, K. M., Grimes, D. W., and Thaxton, P. M. 1989. Cultural management and pest suppression. in Frisbie, R. E., El-Zik, K. M., and Wilson, L. T., eds. Integrated Pest Management Systems and Cotton Production. New York: John Wiley. Pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. 1974. Crop-herbicide rotations curb weeds. Weeds Today 5:14–15.Google Scholar
Jernigan, J. E. 1979. Rotations are not out-of-date. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:58–59.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., McClelland, M., Kendig, A., and Frans, R. 1997. Monosodium methanearsonate influence on broadleaf weed control with selected postemergence-directed cotton herbicides. J. Cotton Sci 1:72–75.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Focella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Sci. 47:175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. H., Leonard, W. H., and Stamp, D. L. 1976. Principles of Field Crop Production. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. Pp. 176–210.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Azlin, W. R. 1978. Effects of environment on the toxicity of glyphosate to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:605–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minton, E. B. 1972. Effect of weed control in grain sorghum on subsequent incidence of Verticillium wilt in cotton. Phytopathology 62:582–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Tyrl, R. J. 1992. The changing weed problem in cotton. in McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. Cotton Foundation Reference Book Series. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation. Pp. 117–167.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M. and Hagood, E. S. 1993. Weed control in corn (Zea mays) with primisulfuron as influenced by rate, timing, and herbicide combinations. Weed Technol. 7:65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 549–640.Google Scholar
Selleck, G. W. and Baird, D. D. 1981. Antagonism with glyphosate and residual herbicide combinations. Weed Sci. 29:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, F. L. and Owen, W. L. Jr. 1937. Cotton fleahopper, an ecological problem. J. Econ. Entomol 30:848–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingle, C. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1999. Smellmelon (Cucumis melo) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) control with Staple and Roundup Ultra combinations in Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:256.Google Scholar
Treadway, J. A., Patterson, M. G., and Wehtje, G. R. 1997. Efficacy of pyrithiobac and bromoxynil applied with low-volume spray systems. Weed Technol. 11:725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerman, R. B. and Murray, D. S. 1994. Silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 8:720–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar