Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:56:16.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of Nitrogen on Weed Competition in Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gale A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., Auburn, AL 36830
Robert D. McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., Auburn, AL 36830

Abstract

Cotton maintained free of annual grass and broadleaf weeds for 6 or more weeks after emergence in 1969 produced maximum yields, whereas in 1970 and 1971, 8 or more weeks of weed-free maintenance were required. Nitrogen applications at planting of 67 and 100 kg/ha did not influence the weed-free requirement of cotton in any year. Cotton yields were not reduced in 1969 when weeds were allowed to compete for 4 or 2 weeks. In 1970 and 1971 weed competition for 7 or fewer weeks did not result in yield reductions. Nitrogen did not affect the competitive relationship between cotton and weeds in 1969 and 1971. In 1970, however, cotton tolerated only 6 weeks of competition at the zero nitrogen rate, whereas it tolerated 7 weeks of competition at the 67 and 100 kg/ha nitrogen rates. Height and stem diameter of cotton were less reliable indicators of the crop-weed relationship than was yield. Neither height nor stem diameter of cotton revealed a consistent difference in the competitive relationship at the three nitrogen rates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by the 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G.A. and Burns, E.R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149154.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O.C. and Wicks, G.A. 1967. The effect of weed removal treatments on sorghum growth. Weeds. 15:204–107.Google Scholar
3. Cope, J.T. Jr. 1970. Response of cotton, corn & bermudagrass to rates of N, P and K. Auburn Univ. Alabama Agri. Expt. Cir. 181. 30 pages.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J.H. 1965. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds. 13:206208.Google Scholar
5. Dawson, J.H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds. 13:245249.Google Scholar
6. Hill, L.V. and Santelmann, P.W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual weeds on Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Knake, E.L. and Slife, F.W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds. 13:331334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Martinez, C. Isidro and Jorge Nieto, H. 1968. The critical periods of competition between weeds and spring cotton in the Yaqui Valley of Obregon, Sonora, Mexico. Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer. Abstr. p. 151.Google Scholar
9. Ramirez, Fidel A. and Jorge Nieto, H. 1968. The critical periods of competition between weeds and winter cotton in the irrigated valley of Mochis, Sins, Mexico. Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer. Abstr. p. 152.Google Scholar
10. Smith, D.T. and Tseng, U.H. 1970. Cotton Development and Yield as Related to Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) Density. Proceedings Cotton Physiology and Defoliation Conference 24:3738.Google Scholar
11. Staniforth, D.W. 1962. Responses of soybean varieties to weed competition. Agron. J. 54:1113.Google Scholar
12. Weatherspoon, D.M. and Schweizer, E.E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugar beets. Weed Sci. 17:464467.Google Scholar