Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:58:29.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Selected Weeds in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John D. Byrd Jr.  and
Harold D. Coble
John D. Byrd Jr.
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Harold D. Coble
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1987 and 1988, effects of full-season interference of individual weeds on cotton yield were measured with area of influence procedures. In 1987, one spurred anoda, common cocklebur, large crabgrass, jimsonweed, common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, common ragweed, or prickly sida plant per 3 m of row reduced cotton yield between 1% and 7%. Sicklepod did not cause a detectable yield loss. Redroot pigweed, common cocklebur and common ragweed caused 7%, 6% and 5% yield loss, respectively, in 1987. In row weed influence varied from 17 cm (large crabgrass interference) to 86 cm (common cocklebur interference). In 1988, yield losses by individual weeds ranged from 3% to 27%. Common cocklebur, jimsonweed, and common ragweed reduced cotton yields 28%, 15% and 12%, respectively. Spurred anoda and common cocklebur influenced 160 cm and 136 cm of cotton row, respectively. Sicklepod influenced only 47 cm of cotton row.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. ♯ XANSTcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. ♯ AMBELcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 304’goosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ♯ ELEINjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. ♯ DATSTlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. ♯ DIGSAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. ♯ SIDSPredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. ♯ AMAREsicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia L. ♯ CASOBspurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. ♯ ANVCRArea of influencecotton yield reductionweed competition
Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 263 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Anderson, R. L., and Nelson, L. A. 1987. Linear-plateau and plateaulinear-plateau models useful in evaluating nutrient responses. N. C. Agric. Res. Serv. Tech. Bull. No. 283.Google Scholar
2. Bacheler, J. S. 1988. Insect Scouting. Cotton Production Guide No. 13, N. C. Agric. Ext. Serv., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
3. Bridges, D. C., and Chandler, J. M. 1984. Devil's-claw and wild okra competition in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:312.Google Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A., and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. 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
7. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Chandler, J. M., and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1983. Yields of three cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars as influenced by spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) competition. Weed Sci. 31:303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Coble, H. D., and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1989. Interference of weeds with cotton. In McWhorter, C. G. and Abernathy, J. R., eds. Weeds of Cotton: Characterization and Control. No. 2. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN (in press).Google Scholar
10. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed survey – southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
11. Elmore, C. D., Brown, M. A., and Flint, E. P. 1983. Early interference between cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and four weed species. Weed Sci. 31:200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Eisner, J. E., Smith, C. W., and Owen, D. F. 1979. Uniform stage descriptions in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 19:361–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Harper, J. L. 1983. Mixtures of species. I. Spaces and proportion. p. 237–267 in Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
14. James, A. R., Oliver, L. R., and Talbert, R. E. 1974. Distance of influence of common cocklebur on soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:340.Google Scholar
15. Oliver, L. R., and Buchanan, G. A. 1986. Weed competition and economic threshold. p. 71–97 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
16. Oliver, L. R., Chandler, J. M., and Buchanan, G. A. 1981. Influence of geographic regions on jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) competition in soybeans and cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:260.Google Scholar
17. Rawlings, J. O. 1988. Response curve modeling. p. 376–414 in Applied Regression Analysis: A Research Tool. Wadsworth Publ., Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
18. SAS Institute. 1985. The GLM procedure. p. 433–506 in SAS User's Guide: Statistics Version 5 edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
19. SAS Institute. 1985. The NUN procedure. p. 575–606 in SAS User's Guide: Statistics Version 5 edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
20. SAS Institute. 1985. The REG procedure. p. 655–710 in SAS User's Guide: Statistics Version 5 edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
21. Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
22. Street, J. E., Snipes, C. E., McGuire, J. A., and Buchanan, G. A. 1985. Competition of a binary weed system with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:807–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar