Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T18:24:13.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed and Disease Responses to Herbicides in Single- and Double-Row Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. H. Miller ,
C. H. Carter ,
R. H. Garber  and
J. E. DeVay
J. H. Miller
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
C. H. Carter
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
R. H. Garber
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Shafter, CA 93263
J. E. DeVay
Affiliation:
Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For 3 yr, herbicide treatments of preplant trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine), postemergence diuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea], both herbicides, or none were superimposed on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Acala SJ-2′) grown on beds centered at 102 cm using a single row or two rows spaced 28 cm apart. Cotton stand, after thinning, was 5.1 plants/m in each cotton row. Herbicides controlled annual weeds regardless of planting pattern. Cultivation, without herbicides, controlled annual grass weeds much better in cotton grown in single rows than in double rows. Preplant applications of trifluralin did not influence populations of cotton plants, regardless of row pattern. Single- and double-row plots treated with trifluralin always yielded more than untreated double rows. In two of three seasons, however, single-row plots without herbicides yielded as much as those treated with trifluralin. The lower yields in the double-row cotton were associated with reduced annual grass control especially in plots not treated with trifluralin. Weed control treatments or planting patterns did not influence the occurrence of Pythium ultimum Trow or Rhizoctonia solani Kühn on cotton seedlings. The presence of Thielaviopsis basicola (Berk & Br.) Ferr. on cotton seedlings was not influenced by planting pattern but was increased by trifluralin in the third year of the study. Percentage of cotton plants with symptoms of verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae Kleb.) was not influenced by weed control treatments, but the percentage of diseased plants was higher in single-row than in double-row planting patterns. We attribute this response to fewer plants per hectare in single rows compared to double rows.

Keywords

Trifluralindiuronseedling diseasesverticillium wilt
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , July 1979 , pp. 444 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the 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

1. Andries, J. A., Douglas, A. G., and Albritton, R. C. 1971. Performance of normal, okra, and super okra leaf types in three row widths. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
2. Andries, J. A., Doublas, A. G., and Cole, A. W. 1974. Herbicide, leaf type and rwo spacing response in cotton. Weed Sci. 22:496–499.Google Scholar
3. Arle, H. F. 1973. Weed control in narrow-row cotton. Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf. pp. 16–18.Google Scholar
4. Baker, D. N. and Meyers, R. E. 1966. Influence of stand geometry on light interception and net photosynthesis in cotton. Crop Sci. 6:15–19.Google Scholar
5. Baker, R. S. and Tupper, G. R. 1972. Weed control in narrow-row cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:141–146.Google Scholar
6. Briggs, R. E. and Patterson, L. L. 1969. Narrow row spacing of cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
7. Butterfield, E. J. and DeVay, J. E. 1977. Reassessment of soil assays for Verticillium dahliae . Phytopathology 67:1073–1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Chambers, A. Y., Russell, W. G., Overton, J. R., and Andrews, H. 1969. Effects of combinations of certain pesticides on growth and development of cotton seedlings. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 132–134.Google Scholar
9. Chandler, J. M. and Santelmann, P. W. 1968. Interaction of four herbicides with Rhizoctonia solani on seedling cotton. Weed Sci. 16:453–456.Google Scholar
10. Douglas, A. G. and Andries, J. A. 1970. Narrow row cotton culture in Mississippi-a progress report. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
11. Eshel, Y. and Katan, J. 1972. Effect of dinitroanilines on solanaceous vegetables and soil fungi. Weed Sci. 20:243–246.Google Scholar
12. Grinstein, A., Katan, J., and Eshel, Y. 1976. Effects of dinitroaniline herbicides on plant resistance to soilborne pathogens. Phytopathology 66:517–522.Google Scholar
13. Johnson, R. E. 1969. Spacing effects on growth of cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 105–108.Google Scholar
14. Katan, J. and Eshel, Y. 1973. Interactions between herbicides and plant pathogens. Residue Rev. 45:145–177.Google Scholar
15. Lee, M. and Lockwood, J. L. 1977. Enhanced severity of Thielaviopsis basicola root rot induced in soybean by the herbicide chloramben. Phytopathology 67:1360–1367.Google Scholar
16. Mircertich, S. M. and Kraft, J. M. 1973. Efficiency of various selected media in determining Pythium populations in soil. Mycopath. et Mycol. Appl. 50:151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Neubauer, R. and Avizohar-Hershenson, Z. 1973. Effect of the herbicide, trifluralin, on Rhizoctoniz disease in cotton. Phytopathology 63:651–652.Google Scholar
18. Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Curl, E. A., and Funderburk, H. H. Jr. 1966. Effect of four herbicides on growth of Rhizoctoniz solani . Phytopathology 56:1332–1333.Google Scholar
19. Smith, D. T., Berner, R. C., and Goodard, G. 1971. Herbicide application and incorporation in sprinkler and furrow irrigation systems in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:391.Google Scholar
20. Tang, A., Curl, E. A., and Rodriguez-Kaban, R. 1970. Effect of trifluralin on inoculum density and spore germination of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum in soil. Phytopathology 60:1082–1086.Google Scholar
21. Wanjura, D. F. and Hudspeth, E. B. 1963. Effects of close-row spacing on cotton yields on the Texas High Plains. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. 2266.Google Scholar
22. Weinhold, A. R. 1977. Population of Rhizoctonia solani in agricultural soils determined by a screening procedure. Phytopathology 67:566–569.Google Scholar
23. Wiese, A. F., Hudspeth, E. B. Jr., and Ray, L. L. 1965. Weed control in broadcast cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 18:102–103.Google Scholar
24. Weise, A. F. and Smith, D. T. 1971. Herbicides in narrow-row cotton culture. Crop Sci. 11:518–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Yarwood, C. E. 1946. Isolation of Thielaviopsis basicola from soil by means of carrot disks. Mycologia 38:346–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar