Figure 1 - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
-Rainfall (mm) during the experimental period in 2014 and 2015. A, B, and C are the time points when the herbicides were applied in the experiments (Table 1).
Source publication
Post-harvest cotton stalk control is mandatory in many cotton producing countries, and the major methods used for this practice are mechanical and chemical (glyphosate and 2,4-D as the most usual herbicides applied), or a combination of both. However, the adoption of glyphosate-resistant cotton varieties by growers have required the development of...
Citations
... Smart and Bradford (1997) found that a moldboard plow and stalk puller were very effective for removing cotton stalks. These approaches would be more effective than relying on herbicides, which rarely eliminate all volunteers (Braz et al. 2019;Ferreira et al. 2018;Greenberg et al. 2007). When attempting to control ratooned plants with herbicides, it is critical to consider treatments that are most effective immediately after cotton harvest and not in the following spring (Charles et al. 2013). ...
... In addition, sequential applications of 2,4-D (non-2,4-D-resistant cotton volunteers) are usually required for success. Applications should begin after stalk shredding (adequate regrowth, approximately 2 wk) with a second application made after new regrowth occurs, generally 3 to 6 wk later (Braz et al. 2019;Ferreira et al. 2018;Greenberg et al. 2007;Yang et al. 2006). Few studies have shown that herbicides such as carfentrazone, saflufenacil, glufosinate, and flumiclorac included with the second 2,4-D application improved control (Braz et al. 2019;Francischini et al. 2019). ...
... Applications should begin after stalk shredding (adequate regrowth, approximately 2 wk) with a second application made after new regrowth occurs, generally 3 to 6 wk later (Braz et al. 2019;Ferreira et al. 2018;Greenberg et al. 2007;Yang et al. 2006). Few studies have shown that herbicides such as carfentrazone, saflufenacil, glufosinate, and flumiclorac included with the second 2,4-D application improved control (Braz et al. 2019;Francischini et al. 2019). Francischini et al. (2019) observed glyphosate plus 2,4-D plus saflufenacil applied sequentially was the most effective for controlling non-2,4-Dresistant cotton volunteers. ...
Since the commercialization of herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, primarily glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, their adoption increased rapidly. Multiple HR traits in crops such as canola ( Brassica napus L.), corn ( Zea mays L.), cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.), and soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are available in recent years, and management of their volunteers need attention to prevent interference and yield loss in rotational crops. The objectives of this review were to summarize HR crop traits in barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), canola, corn, cotton, rice ( Oryza sativa L.), soybean, sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris L.), and wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.); assess their potential for volunteerism; and review existing literature on the interference of HR crop volunteers, yield loss, and their management in rotational crops. Herbicide-resistant crop volunteers are problem weeds in agronomic cropping systems, and the impact of volunteerism depends on several factors such as crop grown in rotation, the density of volunteers, management practices, and micro-climate. Interference of imidazolinone-resistant (IR) barley or wheat volunteers can be a problem in rotational crops, particularly when IR crops such as canola or wheat are grown. Herbicide-resistant canola volunteers are abundant in the Northern Great Plains due to high fecundity, seed loss before or during harvest, secondary seed dormancy, and can interfere in crops grown in rotation such as flax ( Linum usitatissimum L.), field peas ( Pisum sativum L.), and soybean. Herbicide-resistant corn volunteers are competitive in crops grown in rotation such as corn, cotton, soybean, and sugarbeet, with yield loss depending on the density of HR corn volunteers. Volunteers of HR cotton, rice, soybean, and sugarbeet are not major concerns and can be controlled with existing herbicides. Herbicide options would be limited if the crop volunteers are multiple HR; therefore, a record-keeping of cultivar planted the previous year and selecting herbicide is important. The increasing use of 2,4-D, dicamba, glufosinate, and glyphosate in North American cropping systems requires research on herbicide interactions and alternative herbicides or methods for controlling multiple HR crop volunteers.
In 2017, cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) leafroll dwarf virus (CLRDV) was first reported in the United States. One CLRDV inoculum source includes the previous year's cotton stalks; hence, destroying cotton stalks could be effective for CLRDV management. However, tillage‐intensive stalk destruction methods (SDMs) can degrade southeastern soils, but a cover crop may provide short‐term benefits and reduce CLRDV incidence. Therefore, we examined three SDMs (Tillage, Pull, Mow) across two cover crop levels (no cover and rye [Secale cereale L.]/clover [Trifolium incarnatum L.] mixture) and two cotton varieties to determine how cotton growth, soil penetration resistance (PR), and two CLRDV incidence sample times (pre‐harvest and post‐harvest) were affected across six environments during the 2021 and 2022 growing seasons. None of the SDMs affected any factors examined in this experiment, except soil PR and cotton yield. The Pull and Mow SDMs both increased soil PR compared to the Tillage SDM. An 8% yield increase (Pull > Mow) was observed, but the Tillage SDM yield did not differ from Pull or Mow SDMs. The rye/clover mixture also increased soil PR. Although cotton stands were 15% greater with no cover crop, subsequent cotton yield and fiber quality were minimally affected by cover crops. The rye/clover mixture increased post‐harvest CLRDV incidence, and cotton yields were equal between cover crops. Pre‐harvest CLRDV incidence probability was 0.23, but post‐harvest CLRDV incidence probability was 0.71. Continuing to identify and evaluate cultural practices that reduce CLRDV incidence is imperative to prevent negative impacts.
