Soils of the Texas Rolling Plains have poor structure, low soil organic matter contents, and low water holding capacity. Alternative farming practices must be explored to conserve and improve this natural resource. An 11‐yr (1979‐1989) field experiment was conducted at the Texas A&M University Research Station at Munday to determine the effects of tillage (reduced vs. conventional) and residue management (with vs. without residue) on grain yields of continuous grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] and continuous wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under dryland and irrigated conditions. A grain sorghum—wheat rotation (double‐crop) under reduced tillage was included in the irrigated study. Yields of reduced‐tillage grain sorghum in dryland and irrigated studies were as high or higher than yields of conventional‐tillage grain sorghum. Removal of surface residues in irrigated grain sorghum caused a significant decrease in yields. In contrast, reduced‐tillage systems and surface residues caused reductions in yields for dryland and irrigated wheat, which may be the result of decreased plant populations caused by poor seed‐to‐soil contact when planting through surface residues and N deficiency caused by immobilization. The average yield of irrigated wheat or grain sorghum using reduced‐tillage double‐cropping (2 and 3 Mg ha−1, respectively) was lower relative to wheat (3.5 Mg ha−1) and grain sorghum (4.6 Mg ha−1) grown continuously under conventional tillage.
A 3-yr dryland study was initiated in 1999 at Munday, TX, on an Altus fine sandy loam to determine the most appropriate cotton growth stage or stages at which to apply glyphosate. The objectives were: (1) to evaluate control of silverleaf nightshade in the cotton and (2) to determine the effect on yield. Treatments were: (1) control (C; two cultivations), (2) early glyphosate at the four-leaf stage (E), (3) early glyphosate followed by a midseason application 21 d later (E+M), (4) two cultivations plus late glyphosate at 20% open bolls (L), (5) treatment E+L, and (6) treatment E+M+L. In fall 1999 and 2001, silverleaf nightshade stem numbers decreased in the plots sprayed early and midseason, and increased in plots receiving only late or no applications when compared with the counts in the spring of those years. However, in fall 2000, nightshade numbers were less than in early spring 2000 regardless of treatment, probably because of hot and dry weather. In fall 2001, silverleaf nightshade populations had increased 13-fold and twofold for the C and L treatments, respectively, when compared with populations at the beginning of the study. Other treatments had population decreases of 10 to 90%. Three-year average lint yields were higher with early or early plus midseason applications. Lint yields were similar with early or early plus midseason sprays. Lint yields were higher when nightshade/cotton biomass competition was lower. Early application of glyphosate can effectively control silverleaf nightshade populations and can increase yield when compared to no application or a late application.
No abstract
Studies were conducted at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station research farms located at Munday (1996 test) and Chillicothe (1997 test) to evaluate relay strip crops in combination with a food spray to enhance biological control of bollworms, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), and cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii Glover, in cotton. The relay crops included fall plantings of hairy vetch, Vicia villosa Roth, and canola, Brassica napus L., and a spring planting of grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor L. Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., was planted between the relay crops or was isolated from the relay crops. Treatments within the two cotton systems included an untreated check plot, a plot sprayed with sugar+yeast (food spray) during summer to attract and hold predator insects, a plot sprayed with biological (`soft') insecticides for bollworm and cotton aphid control (Bacillus thuringiensis and pymetrozine, respectively), and a plot sprayed with harsh insecticides for bollworm and cotton aphid control (zeta cypermethrin and dicrotophos or profonofos, respectively). A split-plot experimental design, with three replications, was used where whole plots included relay and isolated cotton systems and subplots were the four food/ chemical treatments. Predator numbers were monitored with a vacuum sampler once a week in relay crops and cotton. Bollworms and cotton aphids were monitored visually once a week in cotton during July and August. Total predator numbers were higher in cotton adjacent to relay crops in 1996, but not in 1997. The food spray did not enhance attraction and retention of predators either year. Bollworm larval numbers were significantly higher in relay cotton, food spray plots in 1996. Bollworm larval numbers were similar in relay and isolated cotton, and larval numbers were significantly reduced only in the plot where zeta cypermethrin (harsh insecticide plot) was used. In 1996, cotton aphid numbers in the relay cotton system were significantly higher in the untreated check plots in relation to numbers in the food spray, soft insecticide, and harsh insecticide plots, which were statistically similar. In the isolated cotton system, aphid numbers were highest in untreated plots, intermediate in food spray and soft insecticide plots, and lowest in the harsh insecticide plots. Aphid numbers increased more rapidly in the harsh insecticide plots that had been treated previously for bollworm control. The food spray and pymetrozine treatments reduced cotton aphids more effectively in the relay cropping system than in the isolated cotton system. Bollworms and cotton aphids did not reach pest status in 1997. The combination of a relay cropping system with a food spray did not enhance predator numbers and did not aid in retention of predators in cotton during August. Sucrose in the food spray attracted high numbers of bollworms in 1996.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.