Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-wlffp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T22:12:49.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton and corn rotation under reduced tillage management: impacts on soil properties, weed control, yield, and net return

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Krishna N. Reddy ,
Martin A. Locke ,
Clifford H. Koger ,
Robert M. Zablotowicz  and
L. Jason Krutz
Martin A. Locke
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Sedimentation Laboratory, Water Quality and Ecology Research Unit, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655
Clifford H. Koger
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crop Genetics and Production Research Unit, P.O. Box 345, Stoneville, MS 38776
Robert M. Zablotowicz
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
L. Jason Krutz
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 6-yr rotation study was conducted from 2000 to 2005 at Stoneville, MS to examine the effects of rotating glyphosate-resistant (GR) and non-GR (conventional) cultivars of cotton with corn under reduced tillage conditions on soil properties, weed control, crop yield, and net return. There were four rotation systems (continuous cotton, continuous corn, cotton–corn, and corn–cotton) for each non-GR and GR cultivar arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Field preparation consisted of disking, subsoiling, disking, and bedding in the fall of 1999. After the fall of 2000, the experimental area received no tillage operations except rebedding after harvest each year to maintain reduced tillage conditions. A glyphosate-based program in GR cultivars and a nonglyphosate-based program in non-GR cultivars were used for weed management. Soil organic carbon in the top 5-cm depth progressively increased from the first year to the sixth year, regardless of rotation. In 2005, organic carbon was higher in corn grown continuously and in rotation compared to continuous cotton, partly due to higher plant residues from corn compared to cotton. Control of most grass and broadleaf weeds was sufficient to support cotton and corn production, regardless of rotation and herbicide program. Control of yellow nutsedge was reduced in continuous non-GR cotton; this apparent weed species shift toward yellow nutsedge was mitigated by breaking the cotton monocrop with corn. Plant populations of both GR and non-GR cotton rotated with corn were similar to that of continuous cotton suggesting cotton stand establishment was not affected by corn residues from the previous year. Cotton yield increased every year following rotation with corn by 10–32% in the non-GR cultivar, and by 14–19% in the GR cultivar compared to continuous cotton. Similarly, corn yield increased by 5–13% in non-GR cultivar and by 1–11% in the GR cultivar when rotated with cotton. As a result, net returns were higher from rotation management as compared with monoculture in both crops. This study demonstrated that alternating between cotton and corn is agronomically feasible and a sustainable option for farmers in the lower Mississippi River alluvial flood plain region who are looking for simple cultural practices that provide economic and environmental benefits.

Keywords

Glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentis L.Conservation tillagecrop rotationglyphosatemonoculturereduced tillagetransgenic cropsoil qualityweed management

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 768 - 774
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2005. Fertilization and Insect Control Guidelines for Corn and Cotton. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service. http://www.msucares.com/pubs/publications/.Google Scholar
Blevins, R. L. and Frye, W. W. 1993. Conservation tillage: an ecological approach to soil management. Adv. Agron 51:33–78.Google Scholar
Bloodworth, L. H. and Johnson, J. R. 1995. Cover crops and tillage effects on cotton. J. Prod. Agric 8:107–112.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T., Reddy, K. N., and Molin, W. T. 2003. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population dynamics in narrow row transgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Weed Technol 17:807–810.Google Scholar
CTIC. 2006. Conservation Technology Information Center. http://ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CTIC.html.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Baerson, S. R., and Rimando, A. M. 2003. Herbicides: glyphosate. in Plimmer, J. R., Gammon, D. W., and Ragsdale, N. N., eds. Encyclopedia of Agrochemicals. New York: Wiley. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/eoa/articles/agr119/frame.html.Google Scholar
Ebelhar, M. W. and Welch, R. A. 1989. Cotton production in rotation systems with corn and soybean. Pages 509–512 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conf. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Franz, J. E., Mao, M. K., and Sikorski, J. A. 1997. Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society Monograph 189.Google Scholar
Gaston, L. A., Locke, M. A., Zablotowicz, R. M., and Reddy, K. N. 2001. Spatial variability of soil properties and weed populations in the Mississippi Delta. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 65:449–459.Google Scholar
Gazaway, W. S., Akridge, J. R., and Mclean, K. 2000. Impact of various crop rotations and various winter cover crops on reniform nematode in cotton. Pages 162–163 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Vol. 1. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1997. Population dynamics of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in cropping systems in the southeastern coastal plain. Weed Sci 45:166–171.Google Scholar
Krutz, L. J., Zablotowicz, R. M., Reddy, K. N., Koger, C. H., and Weaver, M. A. 2006. Rapid development of enhanced atrazine degradation in the Mississippi Delta. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 46:42–43.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A. and Bryson, C. T. 1997. Herbicide–soil interactions in reduced tillage and plant residue management systems. Weed Sci 45:307–320.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A., Reddy, K. N., and Zablotowicz, R. M. 2002. Weed management in conservation production systems. Weed Biol. Manage 2:123–132.Google Scholar
McDonald, B. A., Zhan, J., and Burdon, J. J. 1999. Genetic structure of Rhynchosporium secalis in Australia. Phytopathology 89:639–645.Google Scholar
Mitchell, C. C. 1996. Alabama's “old rotation” 100 years of cotton research. Pages 1387–1390 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Pages 961–1010 in Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Padgette, S. R., Kolacz, K. H., Delannay, X., Re, D. B., LaVallee, B. J., and Tinius, C. N. et al. 1995. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci 35:1451–1461.Google Scholar
Paxton, K. W., Jana, A., and Boquet, D. J. 1995. Economics of cotton production within alternative crop rotation systems. Pages 379–381 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2004. Weed control and species shifts in bromoxynil- and glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) rotation systems. Weed Technol 18:131–139.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2001. SAS (r) Proprietary Software Release 8.2. Windows version 5.1.2600. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006a. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Upland Cotton. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/price/pap-bb/.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006b. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Corn. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ms/corn1.pdf.Google Scholar
Wesley, R. A., Elmore, C. D., and Spurlock, S. R. 2001. Deep tillage and crop rotation effects on cotton, soybean, and grain sorghum on clayey soils. Agron. J 93:170–178.Google Scholar
Wesley, R. A., Heatherly, L. G., Elmore, C. D., and Spurlock, S. R. 1994. Effects of crop rotation and irrigation on soybean and wheat doublecropping on clay soil, an economic analysis. Page 14 in Agricultural Research Service No. ARS-119. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Windham, G. L. and Lawrence, G. W. 1992. Host status of commercial maize hybrids to Rotylenchulus reniformis . J. Nematol 24:(Suppl.). 745–748.Google Scholar
Zablotowicz, R. M., Locke, M. A., Gaston, L. A., and Bryson, C. T. 2000. Interactions of tillage and soil depth on fluometuron degradation in a Dundee silt loam soil. Soil Tillage Res 57:61–68.Google Scholar