Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T06:39:57.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive Effects of Cynodon dactylon, Sorghum halepense and Cyperus rotundus on Cotton and Mustard*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Menashe Horowitz
Menashe Horowitz
Affiliation:
Division of Weed Research, Agricultural Research Organization, Newe Ya'ar Experiment Station, P.O. Haifa, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In a short-term competition experiment in large containers, growth of cotton planted 3 weeks after bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) or purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus), was severely reduced; after 10 weeks of competition, weedy cotton weighed only 15 per cent of the weed-free control. Cotton sown before weeds, or weeds planted before cotton, were only slightly affected by competition. Highly significant negative correlations were found between growth parameters of cotton and weeds. Inhibiting effects, and in some cases transitory stimulation, were produced on mustard seedlings by leachate from weed-infested soil and by extracts from subterranean weed parts, suggesting that the competitive effects of perennial weeds are due to nutrient depletion and to biologically active substances.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1973 , pp. 263 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abdul Wahab, A. S. (1967). Ph. D. Thesis, University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Aharoni, M., Hiller, W. & Patt, J. (1969). Israel J. agric. Res. 19, 47.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. & Burns, E. R. (1970). Weed Sci. 18, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, E. R. & Buchanan, G. A. (1968). Proc. South. Weed Contr. Conf. 21, 151.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. & Wicks, G. A. (1969). Weed Sci. 17, 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Theresa & Horowitz, M. (1970). Weed Res. 10, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Theresa & Horowitz, M. (1971). Weed Sci. 19, 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. (1972a). Weed Res. 12, 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. (1972b). Weed Sci. 20, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. & Friedman, Theresa (1971). Weed Res. 11, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. & Slife, F. W. (1969). Weed Sci. 17, 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohman, J. H. & Kommedahl, T. (1964). Weed 12, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, P. E. L. & Schwerzel, P. J. (1968). Proc. Br. Weed Contr. Conf. 9, 737.Google Scholar
Welbank, P. J. (1963). Weed Res. 3, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar