Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:08:29.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and 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

An area of influence method with biweekly destructive harvests 5 through 19 wk after planting (WAP) was used to monitor the reciprocal interference of common cocklebur and cotton in 1987 and 1988. Plant heights, leaf area, and leaf, stem, boll, fiber, and total plant biomass dry weights were measured in 15-cm increments away from common cocklebur or from a randomly selected cotton plant out to 105 cm. Data indicated that cotton less than 60 cm from common cocklebur was shorter, had less leaf area and lower leaf, stem, boll, and biomass dry weights than cotton beyond 60 cm from common cocklebur or cotton grown without common cocklebur interference. Differences in leaf area and biomass between cotton grown with and without common cocklebur interference were greater at and beyond 13 WAP sample dates than before 13 WAP. By 15 WAP, cotton leaf area and biomass were reduced an estimated 11% and 15%, respectively, averaged over the entire 105 cm of row. Cotton yield, harvested 27 WAP, was reduced an estimated 31% on plants grown with one common cocklebur plant per 2.1 m. Cotton yield was reduced on plants out to 99 cm from common cocklebur. Common cocklebur and cotton plants grown alone were taller, had greater leaf area, and greater leaf, stem, and biomass dry weight than those respective plants grown adjacent to cotton. Common cocklebur grown alone produced 67% more biomass than did cotton grown alone. Cotton plants grown adjacent to other cotton plants produced 89% and 96% less boll and fiber weight, respectively, than plants grown alone.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. ♯ XANSTcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 304’Area of influenceweed competitionXANST
Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 270 - 278
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 plateau-linear-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 27695.Google Scholar
3. Baker, D. N., and Acock, B. 1986. A conceptual model of stress effects. p. 245–288 in Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. M., eds. Cotton Physiology. No. 1. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A., and Burns, E. R. 1970. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. R., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.Google Scholar
6. Buchanan, G. A., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1975. Influence of nitrogen on weed competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 23:324–328.Google Scholar
7. Davis, R. G., Wiese, A. F., and Pafford, J. L. 1965. Root moisture extraction profiles of various weeds. Weeds. 13:98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Eaton, F. M. 1955. Physiology of the cotton plant. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 6:299–328.Google Scholar
9. Ehlig, C. F., and LeMert, R. D. 1973. Effects of fruit load, temperature, and relative humidity on boll retention of cotton. Crop Sci. 13:168–171.Google Scholar
10. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed survey – southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
11. Eisner, J. E., Smith, C. W., and Owen, D. F. 1979. Uniform stage descriptions in upland cotton. Crop Sci. 19:361–363.Google Scholar
12. Gomez, K. A., and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Problem data. p. 272–315 in Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.Google Scholar
13. Green, J. D., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1987. Full-season interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) . Weed Sci. 35:813–818.Google Scholar
14. Gunsolus, J. L. 1986. Reciprocal interference effects between weeds and soybeans measured by area of influence methodology. Ph.D. Dissertation. N.C. State University, Raleigh, NC. 67 p.Google Scholar
15. Lambert, W. M., and Oliver, L. R. 1974. Spurred anoda competition in soybean and cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:341.Google Scholar
16. Mauney, J. R. 1986. Vegetative growth and development of fruiting sites. p. 11–28 in Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. M., eds. Cotton Physiology. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
17. 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
18. Patterson, L. L., Buxton, D. R., and Briggs, R. E. 1978. Fruiting in cotton as affected by controlled boll set. Agron. J. 70:118–122.Google Scholar
19. Patterson, D. T., and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31:318–323.Google Scholar
20. SAS Institute. 1985. The NLIN procedure. p. 575–606 in SAS User's Guide: Statistics Version 5 edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
21. SAS Institute. 1985. The REG procedure. p. 655–710 in SAS User's Guide: Statistics Version 5 edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Walker, R. H. 1987. Interference periods of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) . Weed Sci. 35:529–532.Google Scholar
24. Verhalen, L. M., Mamaghani, R., Morrison, W. C., and McNew, R. W. 1975. Effect of blooming date on boll retention and fiber properties in cotton. Crop Sci. 15:47–52.Google Scholar
25. Wells, J. W., Abernathy, J. R., and Gipson, J. R. 1984. The effect of common cocklebur interference on cotton water relations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:313.Google Scholar