Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:45:26.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Interference with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum)

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

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Westburn M’) was grown for 2 yr at two locations with full-season interference from buffalobur (Solanum rostratum Dunal ♯ SOLCU) at densities ranging from 0 to 64 plants/10 m of row. Dry weight of buffalobur harvested increased by 0.063 to 0.303 kg/plot for each additional weed/10 m of row. Intraspecific competition among buffalobur plants was observed at the higher weed densities. Cotton plant height was reduced by 16 and 32 buffalobur plants/10 m of row (or more) at Tipton and Perkins, OK, respectively, when compared with cotton grown under weed-free conditions. The threshold densities at which initial lint yield reductions occurred were 8 buffalobur plants/10 m of row in 1982 and 1983 at Tipton and 32 and 2 plants/10 m of row at Perkins in 1982 and 1983, respectively. Lint yields were reduced curvilinearly from 6 to 18 kg/ha for each additional buffalobur plant/10 m of row. Fiber quality was not significantly influenced by weed density when analyzed over all experiments; however, 50% span length, uniformity index, and micronaire were adversely affected in some environments.

Keywords

Competitionfiber qualitylint yieldcrop heightSOLCU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , November 1985 , pp. 810 - 814
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. Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Growth and development of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci. 30:238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Effects of shade on silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci. 30:264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.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. 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
8. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hackett, N. M. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum eleagnifolium) with Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:66 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
10. Hackett, N. M. and Murray, D. S. 1983. Interference of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) with Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:53–54 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
11. McCormick, L. L. 1977. Category I–weed survey–southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 30:184–215.Google Scholar
12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Pavlychencko, T. K. 1949. Plant competition and weed control. Agric. Rev. 4:142–145.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47:213–216.CrossRefGoogle 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
18. Wiese, A. F. and Vandiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar