https://rajpub.com/index.php/jaa/issue/feed JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN AGRICULTURE 2020-01-30T10:59:52+00:00 Editorial Office editor@rajpub.com Open Journal Systems https://rajpub.com/index.php/jaa/article/view/8618 Using Fluridone Herbicide Systems for Weed Control in Texas Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum L.) 2020-01-30T10:58:35+00:00 James Grichar w-grichar@tamu.edu Peter A. Dotray p-dotray@tamu.edu Joshua McGinty Joshua.Mcginity@ag.tamu.edu <p>Studies were conducted during 2015 through 2018 in south-central, Coastal Bend, and Southern High Plains areas of Texas to evaluate fluridone herbicide systems for weed control and cotton response. Fluridone alone at 0.17 to 0.23 kg ai ha<sup>-1</sup> followed by postemergence (POST) herbicides controlled <em>Amaranthus Palmeri</em> 82 to 100% season-long while <em>Cucumis melo</em> control ranged from 92 to 100%. Control of <em>Urochloa Texana</em> with fluridone alone ranged from 40 to 96% early-season while late-season control ranged from 37 to 96%. Fluridone plus fomesafen systems controlled <em>A. Palmeri</em>, <em>C. Melo</em>, and <em>U. Texana</em> at least 98% early season; however, late-season control of <em>A. Palmeri</em> was less than 70% while <em>C. Melo</em> control was 91% and <em>U. Texana</em> control was 80%. Adding a POST application of glyphosate to fluridone plus fomesafen improved control to at least 98% for all three weed species. Fluridone plus fluometuron combinations provided similar control to fluridone plus fomesafen. Adding glyphosate (POST) improved <em>A. Palmeri</em> control to at least 82% season-long. Cotton yields reflect the level of weed control with significantly better yields from fluridone systems compared with the weedy check. However, in the one year when the untreated was maintained weed-free, no differences in cotton yield were noted between the weed-free and any herbicide treatment.</p> 2020-01-30T09:31:34+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 James Grichar, Peter A. Dotray, Joshua McGinty https://rajpub.com/index.php/jaa/article/view/8615 Scientific Validity of Approaches to Solving a Number of Agricultural Problems in Azerbaijan 2020-01-30T10:59:52+00:00 RAE. Z. H. Aliyev zakirakademik@mail.ru A. B. Jafarov zakirakademik@mail.ru <p>Annotation: The Republic of Azerbaijan, which translates into a physically-geographical area, a way to the eastern part of the Caucasus, where the Big and Small Caucasus, Tallinn Region, Kurinskaya oblast and Nakhichevan. The Republic is 86.6 this. Per km<sup>2</sup> or 40% of the landfill make up the oil, 60% of the landfill, and snow. He small Caucasus and its lowlands, the complex geographical location of Azerbaijan's historic lands, have been inhabited for thousands of years and have been used extensively in agriculture and livestock. The complexity of the natural conditions here and the ineffective activities of people have led to increased anthropogenic pressures and exogenous processes, which have led to catastrophic erosion processes that have developed and developed. The results of the soil-erosion study conducted in the occupied territories of the region (2004-2012) show that all types of erosion, including surface, linear, silt, grass, as a result of the complex geological and geomorphological situation of the Karabakh region and the combined impact of anthropogenic pressure. Wind and military erosion have developed in a wide range and are measured by the following average statistics. Goranboy-40.9%; Tartar - 45.0%; Aghdam - 31.3%; Barda - 23.2%, Yevlakh - 26.4%; Kelbajar - 52.4%; Beylagan - 19.8%; Aghjabadi - 15.7%; Fizuli - 45.7%; Gabriel - 63.3%; Zinc - 57.7%; Qubatly - 44.0%; Lachin - 48.0%; Serum-20.9%; Upper Karabakh - 37.0%, which means that 884,000 ha of agricultural land is in danger of being out of crop rotation.</p> 2020-01-30T09:21:36+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 RAE. Z. H. Aliyev, A. B. Jafarov