Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:50:43.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Interference with Cotton (Gossypium Birsutum). II. Tumble Pigweed (Amaranthus Albus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Doug W. Rushing ,
Don S. Murray  and
Laval M. Verhalen
Doug W. Rushing
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Laval M. Verhalen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Relationships between production of cotton (Gossypium birsutum L. ‘Westburn M’) and full-season interference from tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus L. ♯ AMAAL) at densities ranging from 0 to 64 plants/10 m of row were measured in three replicated experiments in the field. Dry weight of harvested tumble pigweed increased by 0.149 to 0.402 kg/plot for each additional weed/10 m of row. Intraspecific competition among tumble pigweed plants was observed at the higher weed densities. Cotton plant height was reduced in all three experiments at the 32 or 64 weed densities, but harvesting difficulties were not encountered in these studies. The threshold density where initial lint yield reductions occurred ranged from 4 to 16 tumble pigweed plants/10 m of row in the three experiments. Lint yields were reduced from 8 to 11 kg/ha for each additional tumble pigweed plant/10 m of row. Interference from tumble pigweed did not significantly affect cotton fiber length, uniformity, strength, or micronaire of hand-harvested bolls.

Keywords

Competitionfiber qualitylint yieldcrop heightAMAAL
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , November 1985 , pp. 815 - 818
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Plant competition – an analysis of community functions. Pub. No. 398. Carnegie Inst., Washington, DC. 340 pp.Google Scholar
7. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:484–488.Google Scholar
8. Ivy, H. W. and Baker, R. S. 1972. Prickly sida control and competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 20:137–139.Google Scholar
9. McCormick, L. L. 1977. Category I – weed survey – southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 30:184–215.Google Scholar
10. Patterson, M. G., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and Crowley, R. H. 1980. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) competition with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:327–329.Google Scholar
11. Pavlychencko, T. K. 1949. Plant competition and weed control. Agric. Rev. 4:142–145.Google Scholar
12. Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.Google Scholar
13. Smith, D. T. and Tseng, U. H. 1970. Cotton development and yield as related to pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) density. Pages 37–38 in Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Nat. Cotton Counc., Memphis, TN. (Abstr.).Google Scholar
14. Snipes, C. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 30: 553–556.Google Scholar
15. Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47:213–216.Google Scholar
16. Waterfall, U. T. 1979. Keys to the flora of Oklahoma. Dep. Bot. Res. Found., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK. 246 pp.Google Scholar
17. Whitwell, T., Wells, L. W., and Chandler, J. M. 1981. Report of 1980 cotton weed loss committee. Pages 175–178 in Brown, J. M., ed. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar