English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis, can be damaging in silt loam soils that have predominantly supported cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production in the Mid-Southern United States. The objective of this research was to determine the profitability of integrated nematode management options in Mississippi cotton production in soils naturally infested with the reniform nematode. Experiments were conducted near Hamilton, MS, in 2016 and Oswego and Tchula, MS, in 2017. Commercially available seed treatments included a base seed treatment of azoxystrobin + fludioxonil + mefenoxam and seed-applied nematicides including thiodicarb + imidacloprid and fluopyram. In-furrow nematicides included aldicarb and fluopyram + imidacloprid. Lastly, 1,3-dichloropropene was applied preplant to soil followed by cotton seed with and without treatment. Cotton yield was 40 kg/ha greater when 1,3-dichloropropene was applied, and a base fungicide seed treatment was utilized compared with the base seed treatment alone. Cotton yield was at least 73 kg/ha greater when the base seed treatment was followed by aldicarb or fluopyram + imidacloprid in-furrow compared with seed treatments alone. Economic analyses suggested that seed treatment and in-furrow nematicides without 1,3-dichloropropene provided the greatest return on investment.

Determining the Profitability of Reniform Nematode Control Practices in the Mississippi Cotton Production System