Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:06:42.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic assessment of weed management for transgenic and nontransgenic cotton in tilled and nontilled systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shawn D. Askew ,
William A. Bailey ,
George H. Scott  and
John W. Wilcut
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
George H. Scott
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to evaluate weed management programs in nontransgenic, bromoxynil-resistant, and glyphosate-resistant cotton in nontilled and tilled environments. Tillage did not affect weed control provided by herbicides. Early-season stunting in nontilled cotton was 3% regardless of the herbicide system and was no longer evident at midseason. Cotton yield was 10 to 15% greater, on an average, under tilled conditions than that under nontilled conditions. Excellent (> 90%) common lambsquarters, entireleaf morningglory, ivyleaf morningglory, jimsonweed, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, tall morningglory, and velvetleaf control was achieved with treatments containing pyrithiobac, bromoxynil, and glyphosate. Preemergence (PRE) or postemergence-directed (PD) herbicide inputs were necessary for adequate large crabgrass and goosegrass control. Bromoxynil and pyrithiobac postemergence did not control sicklepod unless supplemented with MSMA and followed by a late-postdirected treatment of cyanazine plus MSMA. Treatments that included glyphosate controlled sicklepod regardless of the late-PD treatment. Economic returns were at least $930 ha−1 and not different from the higher yielding programs in nontransgenic cotton when fluometuron applied PRE was included in the bromoxynil programs. Late-season weed control was usually greater than 90% from glyphosate programs, and net returns from glyphosate programs were as high or higher than the net returns from programs that used midseason treatments of bromoxynil, pyrithiobac, or fluometuron plus MSMA.

Keywords

BromoxynilcyanazinefluometuronglyphosateMSMApendimethalinpyrithiobaccommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray IPOHGgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. DATSTlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. SIDSPsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barnaby CASOBsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea L. PHBPUvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 1330RR’, ‘Stoneville BXN47’, ‘Stoneville 474’Economic analysisherbicide-resistant cropstillage
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 512 - 520
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p. 136.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998a. Guide to Herbicide Injury Symptoms in Cotton. 2nd ed. Hollandale, MN: Agri-Growth. pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998b. Summary of Annual Ownership Costs, Performance Rates, and Hourly Operation Costs by Machines, 1998 Field Crop Budgets. Raleigh, NC: Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University. pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Crop Protection Reference. 15th ed. New York: C & P Press. pp. 1504–2269.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., and Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton (cotton). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:4.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 1998. Variety selection. Pages 24–42 In 1998 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. 1998. Economic outlook and marketing options. Pages 1–5 In 1998 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Brown, A. B. and Cole, T. 1997. Cotton: Estimated Revenue, Operating Expenses, Annual Ownership Costs, and Net Revenue Per Acre. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics Budget 76-1. 3 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1997. Weed management in non-tilled bromoxynil-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 11:335–345.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Belcher, S. B., and Stephenson, D. O. IV. 1999. Preemergence vs. postemergence application of residual herbicides in Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:3.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Page 37 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Massey, R. E., Defelice, M. S., and Becker, C. D. 1997. Weed control and economic returns with postemergence herbicides in narrow-row soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 11:453–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Frans, R. E., and McClelland, M. R. 1993. Total postemergence herbicide programs in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with sethoxydim and DPX-PE350. Weed Technol. 7:196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1985. Limited tillage in cotton production. Pages 61–75 In Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control in Limitedtillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Nishimoto, R. K. and McCarty, L. B. 1997. Fluctuating temperature and light influence seed germination of goosegrass (Eleusine indica). Weed Sci. 45:426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Weed management in bromoxynil-resistant Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47:596–601.Google Scholar
Paulsgrove, M. D., Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Collins, J. R., and Hinton, J. D. 1998. Weed management with Buctril and Staple mixtures in BXN cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:264–265.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 43:21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 1998. Weed management systems for Roundup Ready cotton in Georgia. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:46–47.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., McDowell, L. L., and Hagen, L. J. 1985. Environmental effects of limited tillage. Pages 266–281 In Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. Pages 627–661 In Ruberson, J. R., ed. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Brecke, B. J., et al. 1999. A beltwide evaluation of weed management systems in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 52:189–190.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. Pages 213–230 In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-resistant Crops. Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Hinton, J. D. 1997. Weed management in no-till and tilled Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 21:780.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Snipes, C. E., Nichols, R. L., Hayes, R. M., Chandler, M., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 1998. A regional evaluation of new technologies for weed management in tilled cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:52–53.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management programs for oil seed crops. Pages 343–400 In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Programs. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar