Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:47:05.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Populations Utilizing Herbicide Strategies and Crop Rotation Sequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Leon S. Warren Jr.  and
Harold D. Coble
Leon S. Warren Jr.*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Harold D. Coble
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author: L. S. Warren, Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in North Carolina from 1994 through 1998 to evaluate the effects of five weed management strategies and four corn (Zea mays)–peanut (Arachis hypogaea) rotation sequences on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population development. Effects of these weed management programs on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and peanut production in following years were also investigated. Herbicide programs included a nontreated control, a carbamothioate preplant incorporated (PPI) combination treatment utilizing vernolate in peanut and butylate in corn, an early postemergence (EPOST) acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor combination treatment utilizing imazapic in peanut and halosulfuron in corn, and EPOST treatments of imazapic and imazethapyr in both peanut and imidazolinone-resistant corn. Crop rotation sequences for the 3 yr included continuous corn (CCC), corn–peanut–corn (CPC), peanut–corn–peanut (PCP), and continuous peanut (PPP). The imazapic and ALS inhibitor combination treatments both provided excellent shoot and tuber control. After 3 yr, imazapic and the ALS inhibitor combination treatment reduced shoot and tuber population densities to less than 10% of the nontreated control. Imazethapyr provided variable but better control than the carbamothioate treatment with tuber densities (measured from 0 to 15 cm soil depth) and shoot densities increasing from 733 to 2,901 tubers/m3 of soil and 16 to 43 shoots/m2, respectively, after 3 yr. Tuber densities increased in the nontreated control from 626 to 9,145 tubers/m3 of soil and from 962 to 5,466 tubers/m3 of soil in the carbamothioate treatment during this same period. Also, shoot densities increased in the nontreated control from 22 to 159 shoots/m2 and from 8 to 92 shoots/m2 in the carbamothioate treatment. There was a 31% peanut yield reduction from 1994 to 1996 when peanut was continuously planted or rotated to corn for only 1 yr. Herbicide carryover effects were not observed in cotton during 1997.

Keywords

Butylate, S-ethyl bis(2-methylpropyl)carbamothioatehalosulfuron, methyl 5-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1-H-pyrazole-4-carboxylateimazapic, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidvernolate, S-propyl dipropylcarbamothioatepurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. # CYPROcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3245’ ‘Pioneer 3245IR’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Suregrow 125’peanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 10.’ALS inhibitorscorncottonherbicide carryoverherbicide-tolerant cropsNorth CarolinapeanutALS, acetolactate synthaseCBR, Cylindrocladium black rotCCC, corn–corn–cornCPC, corn–peanut–cornEPOST, early postemergenceGC, ground crackPCP, peanut–corn–peanutPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPPP, peanut–peanut–peanutPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 494 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Bailey, J. 1998. Peanut disease management in a changing economic climate. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 1998 Peanut Information, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. AG-331. p. 70.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865–870.Google Scholar
Batts, R. B., York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Pursuit and Cadre carryover in peanut/cotton rotations. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 27:59.Google Scholar
Black, C. C. Jr., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. N. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 1998. Peanut insect management. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 1988 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. AG-331. pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. 1991. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:139.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. 1992. Imazethapyr (Pursuit) in peanuts: observations in Georgia from the first year. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:104.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1974. Weed survey—southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 27:215–249.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. and Piedrahita, W. 1982. Effect of glyphosate on the sprouting of Cyperus rotundus L. tubers. Weed Res. 22:123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1994. Weed survey—southern states—grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:279–299.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—southern slates—broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:290–305.Google Scholar
Glaze, N. C., Dowler, C. C., Johnson, A. W., and Sumner, D. R. 1984. Influence of weed control programs in intensive cropping systems. Weed Sci. 32:762–767.Google Scholar
Gray, R. A. and Weierich, A. J. 1965. Factors affecting the vapor loss of EPTC from soils. Weeds 13:141–147.Google Scholar
Gray, R. A. and Weierich, A. J. 1968. Leaching of five thiocarbamate herbicides in soils. Weed Sci. 16:77–79.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Nester, P. R. 1997. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 11:714–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Nester, P. R., and Colburn, A. E. 1992. Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 6:396–400.Google Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. 1975. Experiments with Cyperus rotundus L. II. Effects of some herbicide and growth regulators. Weed Res. 15:177–183.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972. Growth, tuber formation and spread of Cyperus rotundus L. from single tubers. Weed Res. 12:348–363.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 1998. Peanut production practices. In Jordan, D. L., ed. 1998 Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publ. AG-331. p. 16 Google Scholar
Jordan-Molero, J. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1978. Seasonal development of yellow and purple nutsedges (Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus) in Illinois. Weed Sci. 26:614–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. 1987. Interference and interaction of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) with crops. Weed Technol. 1:74–81.Google Scholar
Kondap, S. M., Ramakrishna, K., Reddy, G. B., and Rao, A. N. 1982. Investigations on the competitive ability of certain crops against purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) Indian J. Weed Sci. 14:124–126.Google Scholar
Lee, D., Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, and Wiley, G. 1994. AC 263,222 and imazethapyr for weed management in IR corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:219.Google Scholar
Majek, B. 1988. Imazethapyr residue effects on several vegetable crops. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:227.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D., Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S., Hatton, J. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1996. Effect of AC 263,222, imazethapyr, and nicosulfuron on weed control and imidazolinone-tolerant corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 10:822–827.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 30:25–30.Google Scholar
Rao, J. 1968. Studies on the development of tubers in nutgrass and their starch content at different soil depths. Madras Agric. J. 55:18–23.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III and Wilcut, J. W. 1992. Imazethapyr systems for weed management in Georgia peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:106.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of imazethapy to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C esculentus). Weed Technol. 7:900–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. Toxicity of AC 263,222 to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 42:398–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rincon, D. J. and Warren, G. F. 1978. Effect of five thiocarbamate herbicides on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 26:127–131.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:670–673.Google Scholar
Smith, E. V. and Fick, G. L. 1937. Nutgrass eradication studies. 1. Relation of the life history of nutgrass Cyperus rotundus L. to possible methods of control. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 29:1007–1013.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Sweet, R. D. 1987. Biology and life cycle of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1:66–73.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-2037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.Google Scholar
Walls, F. R. Jr., Muzyk, K. R., Wiley, G., and Taylor, F. 1992. Imazethapyr methods of application for control of nutsedge species (Cyperus spp.) in peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:109.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997a. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997b. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) management in corn (Zea mays) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) rotations. Weed Technol. 11:543–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M., Wilcut, J. W., and Coble, H. D. 1997. Influence of AC 263,222 rate and application method on weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 11:520–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R., and Horton, D. N. 1991. Weed control, yield, and net returns using imazethapyr in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 39:238–242.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1994. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:177–205.Google Scholar
Wiley, G. L., Muzyk, K. R., and Walls, F. R. 1991. Methods for control of nutsedge in peanuts with imazethapyr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:141.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. E. 1988. Carbamothiates. In Kerney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Volume 3. New York: Marcel-Dekker. pp. 245–300.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1977. Nutsedge deals misery to cotton growers. Weeds Today. 9:16–17.Google Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1987. Description of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Gooden, D. T. 1993. The effect of Cadre and Pursuit herbicides on nutsedge (Cyperus sp.) control and tuber viability in peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:318.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 1995. Potential for Pursuit and Cadre applied to peanuts to carry over to cotton. In Richter, D. A. and Armour, J., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. San Antonio, TX. January 4–7, 1995. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. p. 602.Google Scholar