Studies were conducted to evaluate density-dependent effects of common ragweed on weed growth and peanut growth and yield. Common ragweed height was not affected by weed density and peanut canopy diameter. Weed height exceeded peanut height throughout the growing season, indicating that competition for light occurred between the two species. Common ragweed aboveground dry biomass per plant decreased as weed density increased, but total weed dry biomass per meter of crop row increased with weed density. The rectangular hyperbola model described the effect of weed 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 did not influence the occurrence of tomato spotted wilt virus, early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola), southern stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii), and Cylindrocladium black rot (Cylindrocladium crotalariae). However, as common ragweed density increased, the incidence of late leaf spot (Cercosporidium personatum) increased. Results indicate that common ragweed is one of the more competitive weeds in peanut and a potential economic threat to peanut growers.
Field studies were conducted near Lewiston–Woodville and Rocky Mount, NC to evaluate the effects of mixed weed species on peanut yield. A combination of broadleaf and grass weeds were allowed to interfere with peanut for various intervals to determine both the critical timing of weed removal and the critical weed-free period. These periods were then combined to determine the critical period of weed control in peanut. The effects of various weedy intervals on peanut yield were also investigated. The predicted critical period of weed control, in the presence of a mixed population of weeds, was found to be from 3 to 8 wk after planting (WAP). Peanut yield decreased as weed interference intervals increased, demonstrating the need for weed control throughout much of the growing season in the presence of mixed weed populations.
Field studies were conducted in 1998 and 1999 to evaluate the response of seven cotton cultivars to CGA-362622 applied postemergence at 7.5 and 15 g ai/ha to three- to five-leaf cotton. The cultivars evaluated included Deltapine 51, Deltapine NuCotn 33B, Paymaster 1220 RR, Paymaster 1220 BG/RR, Stoneville bromoxynil-resistant 47, Stoneville 474, and Sure-Grow 125. At 1 to 2 wk after treatment (WAT), CGA-362622 at 7.5 and 15 g/ha injured all cotton cultivars 7 to 9% and 13 to 15%, respectively. Cotton injury symptoms included chlorosis and minor stunting. At 3 to 4 WAT, injury from CGA-362622 at 7.5 and 15 g/ha was 2 to 6% and 7 to 9%, respectively. Except for Paymaster 1220 RR, Deltapine NuCotn 33B, and Stoneville 474, all cotton cultivars were injured more by the higher rate than by the lower rate of CGA-362622. Injury was not visibly apparent 6 to 8 WAT. CGA-362622 at either rate had no effect on cotton lint yield.
Field studies were conducted near Clayton, Lewiston, and Rocky Mount, NC in 2005 to evaluate weed control and cotton response to preemergence treatments of pendimethalin alone or in a tank mixture with fomesafen, postemergence treatments of glufosinate applied alone or in a tank mixture withS-metolachlor, and POST-directed treatments of glufosinate in a tank mixture with flumioxazin or prometryn. Excellent weed control (> 91%) was observed where at least two applications were made in addition to glufosinate early postemergence (EPOST). A reduction in control of common lambsquarters (8%), goosegrass (20%), large crabgrass (18%), Palmer amaranth (13%), and pitted morningglory (9%) was observed when residual herbicides were not included in PRE or mid-POST programs. No differences in weed control or cotton lint yield were observed between POST-directed applications of glufosinate with flumioxazin compared to prometryn. Weed control programs containing three or more herbicide applications resulted in similar cotton lint yields at Clayton and Lewiston, and Rocky Mount showed the greatest variability with up to 590 kg/ha greater lint yield where fomesafen was included PRE compared to pendimethalin applied alone. Similarly, an increase in cotton lint yields of up to 200 kg/ha was observed whereS-metolachlor was included mid-POST when compared to glufosinate applied alone, showing the importance of residual herbicides to help maintain optimal yields. Including additional modes of action with residual activity preemergence and postemergence provides a longer period of weed control, which helps maintain cotton lint yields.
Field studies conducted at three locations in North Carolina in 1998 and 1999 evaluated crop tolerance, weed control, and yield with CGA-362622 alone and in combination with various weed management systems in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton systems. The herbicide systems used bromoxynil, CGA-362622, glyphosate, and pyrithiobac applied alone early postemergence (EPOST) or mixtures of CGA-362622 plus bromoxynil, glyphosate, or pyrithiobac applied EPOST. Trifluralin preplant incorporated followed by (fb) fluometuron preemergence (PRE) alone or fb a late POST–directed (LAYBY) treatment of prometryn plus MSMA controlled all the weed species present less than 90%. Herbicide systems that included soil-applied and LAYBY herbicides plus glyphosate EPOST or mixtures of CGA-362622 EPOST plus bromoxynil, glyphosate, or pyrithiobac controlled broadleaf signalgrass, entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, prickly sida, sicklepod, and smooth pigweed at least 90%. Only cotton treated with these herbicide systems yielded equivalent to the weed-free check for each cultivar. Bromoxynil systems did not control Palmer amaranth and sicklepod, pyrithiobac systems did not control sicklepod, and CGA-362622 systems did not control prickly sida.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.