Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:33:44.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Population Dynamics in Narrow Row Transgenic Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and Soybean (Glycine max) Rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles T. Bryson ,
Krishna N. Reddy  and
William T. Molin
Charles T. Bryson*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
William T. Molin
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 4-yr field study was conducted during 1998 through 2001 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the effects of narrow-row transgenic cotton and soybean rotation on purple nutsedge populations and crop yield. Crop rotations over 4 yr included cotton and soybean sown in the following patterns: CCSS, CSCS, SCSC, SSCC, and continuous cotton (CCCC) and soybean (SSSS), where cotton is denoted as (C) and soybean as (S), all with herbicide programs that were glyphosate based, non–glyphosate based, or no purple-nutsedge control (NPNC). Purple nutsedge populations and shoot dry biomass were reduced in cotton and soybean rotation and continuous soybean by 72 and 92%, respectively, whereas in continuous cotton, purple nutsedge populations increased by 67% and shoot dry biomass was reduced by 32% after 4 yr. Reductions in purple nutsedge populations also occurred in soybean when cotton was rotated with soybean (CSCS and SCSC), compared with continuous cotton. Among herbicide programs, the glyphosate-based program was more effective in reducing purple nutsedge populations, compared with the non–glyphosate-based program. Seed cotton yield was greater with cotton following soybean (SCSC) than with cotton following cotton (CCCC, CCSS) in 1999. However, seed cotton yields were similar regardless of crop rotation systems in 2000 and 2001. Seed cotton yields were equivalent in the glyphosate-based and non–glyphosate-based programs in 1999 and 2001. During 1999 to 2001, seed cotton yields were reduced by 62 to 85% in NPNC compared with yields in glyphosate- and non–glyphosate-based programs. Soybean yields were unaffected by crop rotation systems in all the 4 yr. Among herbicide programs, non–glyphosate-based program in all 4 yr and glyphosate-based program in 1999 and 2000 gave higher soybean yield compared with NPNC. After 4 yr of rotation, purple nutsedge tubers and plant density were highest in continuous cotton and lowest in continuous soybean. Both herbicide programs reduced tubers per core and plant density compared with NPNC, and the glyphosate-based program was more effective than the non–glyphosate-based program. These results show that in cotton production, severe infestations of purple nutsedge can be managed by rotating cotton with soybean or by using glyphosate-based herbicide program in glyphosate-resistant cotton.

Keywords

Glyphosatepurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. #3 CYPROcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DP 436RR’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘DP 5806RR’Purple nutsedge tubertransgenic cropfb, followed byNPNC, herbicide program with no purple-nutsedge controlPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 805 - 810
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

Anonymous. 2000. Crop Protection Reference. 16th ed. New York: C & P. 2,395 p.Google Scholar
Bariuan, J. V., Reddy, K. N., and Wills, G. D. 1999. Glyphosate injury, rainfastness, absorption, and translocation in purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 13:112–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Hanks, J. E., and Wills, G. D. 1994. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in reduced-tillage cotton with low-volume technology. Weed Technol. 8:26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Wills, G. D., and Quimby, P. C. 1990. Low volume invert emulsions for purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control. Weed Technol. 4:907–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guantes, M. M. and Mercado, B. L. 1975. Competition of Cyperus rotundus L., Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link., and Trianthema portulacastrum L. with cotton. Phillipp. Agric 59:167–177.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. 1962. Development of purple nutsedge under field conditions. Weeds 10:315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. W., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Holt, E. C., Long, J. A., and Allen, W. W. 1962. The toxicity of EPTC to nutsedge. Weeds 10:103–105.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Miller, J. H. 1972. Evaluation of the relative phytotoxicity of herbicides to cotton and nutsedge. Weed Sci. 20:71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1971. Control of nutsedge with organic arsenical herbicides. Weed Sci. 19:601–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. S., Shin, W. K., Kim, T. J., and Cho, K. Y. 1994. Sprouting characteristics and herbicidal responses of purple nutsedge. Korean J. Weed Sci 14:120–127.Google Scholar
Kondap, S. M., Ramakrishna, K., Reddy, S. 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
Martinez-Diaz, G. 1997. Allelopathy of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) on cotton (Gossypium). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ. 143 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus). Weed Sci. 30:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2001. Broadleaf weed control in ultra narrow row bromoxynil-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2002. Weed control and economic comparisons in soybean planting systems. J. Sustainable Agric 21:21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Bendixen, L. E. 1988. Toxicity, absorption, translocation, and metabolism of foliar-applied chlorimuron in yellow and purple nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus). Weed Sci. 36:707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. Software version 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute (Software version).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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C-Y. 2002. Effects of glyphosate on tuber sprouting and growth of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 16:477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1998. Influence of pyrithiobac sodium on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 46:111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1987. Description of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, G. D. and Briscoe, G. A. 1970. Anatomy of purple nutsedge. Weed Sci. 18:631–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, G. D. and McWhorter, C. G. 1988. Effect of inorganic salts on the toxicity and translocation of glyphosate and MSMA in purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 33:755–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar