EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Economic and horticultural evaluation of chemical and mechanical weed control strategies for cowpea



Economic and horticultural evaluation of chemical and mechanical weed control strategies for cowpea



Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117(2): 255-259



The herbicides paraquat, trifluoralin, and metolachlor were compared for efficacy of weed control in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] with and without cultivation as a supplemental strategy. Herbicides also were compared against a no cultivation-no herbicide treatment (control) and against cultivation without an herbicide. Cultivation had no significant effect on seed yield, biological yield, or harvest index of cowpea. Paraquat, applied before seedling but after emergence of weeds, was ineffective for weed control and usually did not change cowpea yield from what obtained without an herbicide. Trifluralin and metolachlor more than tripled cowpea seed yield compared with that obtained without an herbicide in 1988, when potential weed pressure was 886 g.cntdot.m-2 (dry weight). The main effects of trifluralin and metalachlor were not significant for cowpea seed yield in 1989, when potential weed pressure was 319 g.cntdot.m-2 (dry weight). However, in 1989, these two herbicides still increased cowpea seed yield compared with that of the control and increased net farm income by more than $300/ha compared with the income obtained from the control.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 002351627

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

Comparison of chemical and mechanical weed control strategies for cowpea. Hortscience 25(9): 1097, 1990

Results from the Horticultural Chemical Evaluation. Weed control. Frugtavleren 4(3): 98, 100-101, 1975

Economic comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control. Weed Sci, 16: 3, 369-71. Bibl. 7, 1968

Mechanical weed control in cereals. 3. Weed infestation at harvest time subsequent to mechanical and chemical weed control. Z. Acker- u. PflBau. 122: 1, 54-64. bibl. 11, 1965

Mechanical weed control in cereals. 3. Weed infestations at harvest time after mechanical and chemical weed control. Z. Acker- u. PflBau, 122: 1, 54-64. Bibl. 11, 1965

Chemical, mechanical, and economic relationships of weed control methods in Mississippi cotton. Bulletin Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station ( 984): 9 pp., 1992

Economic efficiency of the joint application of chemical and mechanical means of weed control in maize growing. Ikonomika na Selskoto Stopanstvo 9(2): 71-78, 1972

Economic analysis of mechanical and manual application of chemical weed control in cocoa in the coastal area of Bahia. Boletim Tecnico, Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau (74): 16, 1980

Weed control in horticultural crops. I. Chemical weed control in strawberries. Res. Bull. Mo. agric. Exp. Stat, 491: 33. bibl. 38, 1952

Evaluation of chemical, mechanical and manual weed control methods in cotton. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 11(3/4): 137-140, 2005

Studies on field evaluation of mechanical chemical and cultural weed control in wheat. Journal of Research Assam Agricultural University 5(1): 111-113, 1984

An evaluation of chemical and mechanical weed control method s in irrigated cotton (variety MCU 5). 1974

Evaluation of chemical and mechanical weed control methods in upland rice culture. International Rice Commission Newsletter 25(1/2): 44-45, 1976