Claim · model-written summary
Future recommendations for GR Palmer amaranth control include integrating cover crops with PRE herbicides, in-season residual herbicides, timely POST applications and hand weeding
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Interactor
- Palmer amaranthe7weed
- Outcome
- GR Palmer amaranth controle7
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Palmer amaranth Control in Cotton”
e7“future recommendations for GR Palmer amaranth control will include integrating cover crops with PRE herbicides, overlaying residual herbicides in-season, timely POST herbicide applications, and hand weeding”
Title
Cover Crop and Postemergence Herbicide Integration for Palmer amaranth Control in Cotton
Matthew S. Wiggins; Robert M. Hayes; Robert L. Nichols; et al. Weed Technology 2017. doi:10.1017/wet.2017.10
Other claims from this paper (6)
- Observation Winter-annual grass cover crops accumulated the most biomass and gave the most Palmer amaranth control
- Association A 1540 kg ha-1 cover crop rate is estimated to delay Palmer amaranth emergence and growth to 10 cm by 16.5 days
- Intervention effect Palmer amaranth took longer to reach 10 cm under cereal rye and wheat cover crops than under hairy vetch and crimson clover
- Intervention effect The glufosinate-based system gave greater control of Palmer amaranth than the glyphosate system (75% vs 31%)
- Intervention effect A POST-only herbicide system did not give sufficient control of Palmer amaranth
- Intervention effect POST herbicides were needed for adequate control of Palmer amaranth