Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:47:51.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tall Morningglory Response to Planting Depth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. W. Cole
A. W. Cole*
Affiliation:
Mississippi Agric. and Forest. Exp. Sta., Mississippi State, MS 39762
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Emergence of tall morningglory [Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth] seedlings was delayed and reduced as planting depths increased from 1.3 to 5.0 cm. Development of seedlings emerging from 3.8 cm or greater depth was delayed for up to 4 weeks as indicated by dry weight accumulation. In both greenhouse and field studies, chemical control of tall morningglory was generally greater when seedlings emerged from planting depths of 2.5 cm or greater. The competitive ability of tall morningglory, as indicated by yield reduction of cowpea [Vigna sinensis (L.) Endl], was dependent upon both planting depth and duration of infestation. Cowpea yields were reduced more by the tall morningglory plants that emerged from 1.3 cm than by those that emerged from greater planting depths for a given infestation period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 24 , Issue 5 , September 1976 , pp. 489 - 492
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 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. Andersen, R.N. 1968. Germination and establishment of seeds for experimental purposes. W.F. Humphrey Press Inc., Geneva, NY 236 pp.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G.A. 1971. Knowing your tools in setting up weed control programs. Cotton International 38:51–53.Google Scholar
3. Cole, A.W. and Coats, G.E. 1973. Morningglory germination response to temperature and herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Frans, R.E. 1969. Changing ecology of weeds in cotton fields. Beltwide Cotton Production–Mechanization Conf. Proc. (New Orleans, LA) 29–30.Google Scholar
5. Holm, R.E. and Miller, M.A. 1972. Weed seed germination responses to chemical and physical treatments. Weed Sci. 20:150–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Knake, E.L. and Wax, L.M. 1968. The importance of the shoot of giant foxtail for uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 16:393–395.Google Scholar
7. Koller, D., Mayer, A.M., Poljakoff-Mayber, A., and Klein, S. 1962. Seed germination. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 13:437–464.Google Scholar
8. Santleman, P.W. and Evetts, L. 1971. Germination and herbicide susceptibility of six pigweed species. Weed Sci. 19:51–54.Google Scholar
9. Teem, D.H., Hoveland, C.S., and Buchanan, G.A. 1974. Primary root elongation of three weed species. Weed Sci. 22:47–50.Google Scholar
10. Toole, E.H., Hendricks, S.B., Borthwick, H.A., and Toole, V.H. 1956. Physiology of weed germination. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 7:299–334.Google Scholar
11. Wilson, H.P. and Cole, R.H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14:49–51.Google Scholar