Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:30:39.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in a Conservation Tillage System for Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Wayne Keeling ,
Kerry T. Siders  and
John R. Abernathy
J. Wayne Keeling
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
Kerry T. Siders
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
John R. Abernathy
Affiliation:
Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control is a limiting factor for adoption of conservation tillage systems on the Texas Southern High Plains. A field study was established to evaluate Palmer amaranth control with strip-tillage dinitroaniline herbicide incorporation in wheat residue. Preemergence herbicides were applied alone and in combination with strip-tilled incorporated herbicides. Significant cotton injury or stand reductions were not observed with any treatment. Effective (>80%) early season Palmer amaranth control was achieved with trifluralin or pendimethalin in conjunction with preemergence herbicides. Preemergence herbicides alone did not provide adequate control.

Keywords

Pendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenaminetrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminecotton, Gossypium hirsutum (L.) ‘Paymaster 145’, Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. ♯ AMAPADinitroaniline herbicidespersistenceweed controlAMAPA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 137 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Abernathy, J. R., and Keeling, J. W. 1979. Efficacy and rotational crop response to levels and dates of dinitroaniline herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 27:312–317.Google Scholar
2. Banks, P. A., and Robinson, W. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30: 164–168.Google Scholar
3. Banks, P. A., and Robinson, W. L. 1984. The fate of oryzalin applied to straw-mulched and non-mulched soils. Weed Sci. 32:269–272.Google Scholar
4. Colvin, D. L., Wehtje, G. R., Patterson, M., and Walker, R. H. 1985. Weed management in minimum-tillage peanuts as influenced by cultivar, row spacing, and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:23–237.Google Scholar
5. Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1987. Weed management in reduced tillage sandy soil systems. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 40:97.Google Scholar
6. Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Response of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to repeated application of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:527–530.Google Scholar
7. Keeling, J. W., Segarra, E., and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Evaluation of conservation tillage cropping systems for cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 2:269–273.Google Scholar
8. Koskinen, W. C., and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conserv., Nov.–Dec. pp. 365–370.Google Scholar
9. McGregor, K. C., Green, J. D., and Gurley, G. E. 1975. Erosion control with no-till cropping practices. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 18:189–200.Google Scholar
10. Unger, P. W., and Wiese, A. F. 1979. Managing irrigated wheat residues for water storage and subsequent dryland sorghum production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:582–588.Google Scholar
11. Wiese, A. F., Chenault, E. W., and Hudspeth, E. B. Jr. 1969. Incorporation of preplant herbicides for cotton. Weed Sci. 17:481–483.Google Scholar