Compatibility of the Clomazone Active Ingredient with Pre-emergence Herbicides to Weed Control in Conventional Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Fields in Semi-arid Conditions

Yıl 2019, Sayı: 17, 1256 - 1262, 31.12.2019

Fırat Pala , Hüsrev Mennan

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.658839

Öz

One of the critical components of successful cotton production is effective weed management. Since cotton cannot compete sufficiently with weeds, especially in the first six weeks, a certain number of weeds significantly reduces cotton yield. In addition, weeds can make cotton harvest difficult and contaminate cotton fiber. The main preferred control method for broadleaf weeds in the conventional cotton of Turkey (non-tolerant and non-resistant varieties) is the use of pre-emergence herbicides. However, since there is not much information about the effects of mixtures of different pre-planting herbicides, the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and selectivity of herbicides applied as a pre-emergence mixture in cotton. The randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications and eleven treatments was used in the field experiment. The plots were established to 20 square meters (4 m x 5 m). Herbicide applications in the study were carried out in Diyarbakir in 2015, and dual mixtures of clomazone, fluometuron, oxyfluorfen, and pendimethalin were used with different mixtures and doses. Clomazone 0.2 l ha-1 + fluometuron 1,5 l ha-1, clomazone 0.2 l ha-1 + fluometuron 2 l ha-1, clomazone 0.4 l ha-1 + pendimethalin 1.5 l ha-1 and clomazone 0.3 l ha-1 + pendimethalin 2 l ha-1 mixture was found to be complete weed control efficiency. This result shows that mixtures with clomazone active ingredient increase in the efficiency of herbicides pre-planting. Oxyfluorfen mixtures showed the most hazardous damage in terms of product selectivity. The highest cotton yield (> 5 t ha-1) was obtained from the application of mixes of clomazone 0.30 l ha-1 + fluometuron 2 l ha-1 and clomazone 0.2 l ha-1 + fluometuron 1.5 l ha-1, respectively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cotton, Pre-plant, Pre-emergence, Herbicides, Weeds

Clomazone Aktif Maddesinin Yarı Kurak Koşullarda Geleneksel Pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Tarlalarında Yabancı Ot Kontrolünde Çıkış Öncesi Herbisitlerle Tank Karışımı

Öz

Başarılı pamuk üretiminin kritik bileşenlerinden biri, etkili yabani ot yönetimidir. Pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.), yabani otlarla yeterince rekabet edemediğinden, özellikle ilk altı haftada, bazı yabani ot türleri pamuk verimini önemli ölçüde azaltabilmektedir. Ayrıca yabani otlar pamuk hasadını zorlaştırabilir ve lifini kirletebilir. Türkiye geleneksel pamuk üretiminde (tolerantlı ve dayanıklı olmayan çeşitler) özellikle geniş yapraklı yabancı ot kontrolü için tercih edilen temel yöntem, ekim öncesi veya çıkış öncesi herbisitlerin kullanılmasıdır. Bununla birlikte, farklı çıkış öncesi herbisitlerin karışımlarının etkileri hakkında fazla bilgi bulunmadığından, bu çalışma, pamukta çıkış önceki bir karışım olarak uygulanan herbisitlerin etkinliğini ve seçiciliğini belirlemek için yürütülmüştür. Arazi denemeleri tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre dört tekerrürlü olarak 11 farklı uygulama olacak şekilde tasarlanmıştır. Parseller 20 metrekare (4 m x 5 m) olarak kurulmuştur. Bu çalışmada herbisit uygulamaları 2015 yılında Diyarbakır'da gerçekleştirilmiş ve çift klomazon aktif maddesinin fluometuron, oksiflorfen ve pendimetalin ile farklı dozlardaki karışımları kullanılmıştır. Clomazone 0.2 l ha-1 + fluometuron 1,5 l ha-1, clomazone 0.2 l ha-1 + fluometuron 2 l ha-1, clomazone 0.4 l ha-1 + pendimethalin 1.5 l ha-1 ve clomazone 0.3 l ha-1 + pendimethalin 2 l ha-1 karışımın yabani ot kontrol etkinliğinin tam olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuç, clomazone aktif maddesi ile yapılan herbisit karışımlarının çıkış öncesi uygulandığında yabancı ot control etkinliği arttığını göstermektedir. Oxyfluorfen karışımlarında ürün seçiciliği açısından en tehlikeli hasar gözlenmiştir. En yüksek pamuk verimleri (> 5 t ha-1) sırasıyla clomazone 0.30 l ha-1 + fluometuron 2 l ha-1 ve clomazone 0.2 l ha-1 + fluometuron 1.5 l ha-1 karışımlarının uygulanmasından elde edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pamuk, Ekim öncesi, Çıkış öncesi, Herbisitler, Yabancı ot

Kaynakça

• Berger, S. T., Ferrell, J. A., Rowland, D.L., Webster, T. M. (2015). Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) competition for water in cotton. Weed Sci., 63, 928-935. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-15-00062.1
• Bukun, B. (2004). Critical periods for weed control in cotton in Turkey. Weed Res., 44, 404-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2004.00415.x Cobb A. H., Reade P. H. (2011). Herbicides and Plant Physiology. 2nd edn., Wiley-Blackwell: A John Wiley &Sons, Chichester, UK.
• Dan, H. A., Barroso, A. L. L., Oliveıra, Jr R. J., Constantin, J., Dan, L. G. M., Braz, G. B. P., Oliveıra-Neto, A. M. and D‘avila, R. P. (2011). Selectivity of clomazone applied alone or in tank mixtures to cotton, Planta Daninha, 29(3), 601-607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582011000300014
• Economou, G., Bilalis, D., Avgoulas, C. (2005). Weed flora distribution in Greek cotton fields and its possible influence by herbicides. Phytoparasitica, 33, 406-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02981309
• EDIS. (2019). University of Florida IFAS Extension by Wright, D.L., Small, I and Martinil, X.. Production of ultra-narrow-row cotton. Original publication date August 2000. Revised July 2011 and November 2018. [accessed on: 05 Nov. 2019] Available at: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/aa267.
• EWRC. 1964. Report of 3rd and 4th meetings of EWRC (European Weed Research Council) - Committee of Methods in Weed Research. Weed Res., 4(1), 88.
• Freitas, R. S., Berger, P. G., Ferreira, L. R., Silva, A. C., Cecon, P. R., Silva, M. P. (2006). Weed management of cotton under no-tillage. Planta Daninha, 20(2), 197-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582006000200017
• HRAC. (2019). Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. [accessed on: 19 Apr. 2019] Available at: https://hracglobal.com/
• Koger, C. H. (2007). Effect of residual herbicides used in the last post-directed application on weed control and cotton yield in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol., 21(2), 378-383. https://doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2007)21[378:EORHUI]2.0.CO;2
• Kraehmer, H. (2016). Atlas of weed mapping. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Wiley-Blackwell, New York USA.
• Kruger, G. R., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., Owen, M. D. K., Shaw, D. R., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Wilson, R. G., Bernards, M. L., Young. B. G. (2009). US grower views on problematic weeds and changes in weed pressure in glyphosate resistant corn, cotton, and soybean cropping systems. Weed Technol. 23, 162-166. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-08-040.1
• Krutz, L. J., Locke, M. A., Steinriede, R. W. (2009). Interactions of tillage and cover crop on water, sediment, and pre emergence herbicide loss in glyphosate-resistant cotton: implications for the control of glyphosate-resistant weed biotypes. J. Environ. Qual., 38(3), 1240-1247. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0342
• Main, C. L., Michael, A. S., Murdock, E. C. (2007). Weed response and tolerance of enhanced glyphosate resistant cotton to glyphosate. J. Cotton Sci., 11(2), 104-109.
• Memon, R. S., Bhatti, G. R., Khalid, S., Ahmed, S. (2014). Illustrated weed flora of cotton crop of Khairpur district, Sindh. Pak. Pak. J. Bot., 46, 5-12.
• MS. (2015). Meteorological Service. [accessed on: 27 Jun. 2015] Available at: https://www.mgm.gov.tr/
• Nalini, K., Murhukrishnan, P., Chinnusamy, C., Vennila, C. (2015). Weeds of cotton–A Review. Agricultural Reviews, 36(2). https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-0741.2015.00016.1
• Ortiz, C.E., Bourland, F. M. (1999). Comparative early growth of cotton seedlings expressing a visible true leaf at emergence and normal phenotype seedlings. J. Agric. Univ. P. R., 83, 19-31.
• Pala, F., Mennan, H. (2014). Investigation of trifluralin resistance in some species of the pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in cotton fields of the Southeastern Anatolia Region. Turkish Journal of Weed Science, 17(1), 1-8.
• Pala, F., Mennan, H. (2016). Determination of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) species and their frequency and density in cotton fields in Southeastern Anatolia Region, Turkey. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Mustafa Kemal University, 21(2), 139-148.
• Pala, F., Mennan, H. (2017). Weed control methods in cotton fields of Diyarbakir. International Conference on Agriculture, Forest, Food Sciences and Technologies, 15-17 May, Cappadocia, Turkey.
• Pala, F., Mennan, H. (2018). Current state of weed management and problematic weeds in cotton fields of Diyarbakir. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 55(1), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.330081
• Papamichail, D., Eleftherohorinos, I., Froud-Williams, R., Gravanis, F. (2002). Critical periods of weed competition in cotton in Greece. Phytoparasitica, 30, 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02983976
• PPP. (2019). Plant Protection Products. [accessed on: 01 May. 2019] Available at: https://bku.tarim.gov.tr/
• Puntener, W. (1981). Manual for field trials in plant protection. Second Edition. Ciba-Geigy Limited, Basle, Switzerland.
• Salgado, T. P., Alves, P. I. C. A, Mattos, E. D., Martins, J. F., Hernandez, D. D. (2002). Weed interference periods in the cotton crop (Gossypium hirsutum). Planta Daninha, 20(3), 373-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582002000300007
• Siqueri, F., V. (2002). Controle de ervas daninhas em pré-emergência. Boletim de Pesquisa de Algodão. Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa Agropecuária. Mato Grosso, 8p.
• Streibig, J. C., Jensen, J. E. (2000). Actions of herbicides in mixtures. In Herbicides and their mechanisms of action (pp. 152-180). CRC Press, Sheffield, UK.
• Walker, S. R., Taylor, I. N., Milne, G., Osten, V. A., Hoque, Z., Farquharson, R. J. (2005). A survey of management and economic impact of weeds in dryland cotton cropping systems of subtropical Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 45, 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA03189
• Yamashita, O. M., Mendonça, F. S., Orsi, J. V. N., Resende, D. D., Kappes, C., Guımarães, S. C. (2008) Effect of reduced oxyfluorfen rates on cotton cultivars. Planta Daninha, 26(4), 917-921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582008000400024
• Zhang, Z. P. (2003). Development of chemical weed control and integrated weed management in China. Weed Biol. Manag., 3, 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1444-6162.2003.00105.x