<p>Low commodity prices and environmental concerns have compelled cotton growers to increase production efficiency while decreasing inputs. Research evaluated weed interference, strip-tillage production, transgenic cultivars, and new herbicides to improve weed management in peanut and cotton. The rectangular hyperbola model described the effect of common ragweed density on percent peanut yield loss. With the asymptote constrained to 100% maximum yield loss, the I coefficient (yield loss per unit density as density approaches zero) was 68.3 + 12.2%. Common ragweed height was not affected by weed density or peanut canopy diameter. Weed height exceeded peanut height throughout the growing season, indicating that competition for light occurred between the two species. Common ragweed above-ground dry biomass per plant decreased as weed density increased, but total weed dry biomass per m crop row increased with weed density. Studies evaluated weed management using diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip-tillage and conventional-tillage peanut. Dimethenamid plus diclosulam or flumioxazin preemergence (PRE) controlled common lambsquarters, eclipta, and prickly sida at least 91%. Diclosulam and flumioxazin controlled Ipomoea morningglory species (59 to 91%) and bentazon plus acifluorfen postemergence (POST) provided >90% control. Dimethenamid plus diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE produced equivalent yields and net returns with no significant differences between the two PRE options. The tillage production system did not influence weed control of eight weeds, peanut yields, or net returns. Studies were conducted to evaluate weed management systems in non-transgenic, transgenic bromoxynil-resistant, and transgenic glyphosate-resistant cotton in strip- and conventional-tillage environments. Tillage did not affect the level of weed control provided by the herbicide systems evaluated. Excellent (>90%) control of common lambsquarters, Ipomoea species including entireleaf, ivyleaf, pitted, and tall morningglories; jimsonweed, prickly sida, and velvetleaf was achieved with programs containing bromoxynil, glyphosate, and pyrithiobac early postemergence (EPOST). Glyphosate systems controlled fall panicum, goosegrass, and large crabgrass more consistently than bromoxynil and pyrithiobac systems. Bromoxynil and pyrithiobac EPOST did not control sicklepod unless applied in mixture with MSMA and followed by (fb) a late postemergence-directed (LAYBY) treatment of prometryn plus MSMA. Herbicide systems that included glyphosate EPOST controlled sicklepod with or without a soil-applied herbicide treatment. The highest yielding systems included all the glyphosate systems and bromoxynil systems that included a soil-applied herbicide treatment. Non-transgenic systems that included a soil-applied herbicide treatment yielded less than soil-applied treatment plus glyphosate EPOST system. Net returns from glyphosate systems were generally higher than net returns from bromoxynil or pyrithiobac systems.<P>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NCSU/oai:NCSU:etd-20011112-094020 |
| Date | 15 November 2001 |
| Creators | Clewis, Scott Barton |
| Contributors | John W. Wilcut, Clyde E. Sorenson, David L. Jordan |
| Publisher | NCSU |
| Source Sets | North Carolina State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-20011112-094020 |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0071 seconds