Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T08:17:24.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed production dynamics in cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey ,
Shawn D. Askew ,
Sundar Dorai-Raj  and
John W. Wilcut
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Box 0330, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0330
Sundar Dorai-Raj
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, 403-K Hutcheson Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Velvetleaf has been a major concern of Southern cotton growers, yet information on its competitiveness and seed production in cotton is lacking. Experiments were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at the Central Crops Research Station in Clayton, NC, to evaluate density-dependent effects of velvetleaf interference and seed production dynamics in conventional tillage cotton. Velvetleaf at densities of up to 3.5 plants m−1 of row did not influence cotton height until at least 4 wk after planting. Velvetleaf height increased as plant density increased throughout the season in 1997, but it was not affected until 9 wk after planting in 1998. Because of differences in environmental conditions, velvetleaf and cotton achieved maximum height later in 1998 than in 1997; however, velvetleaf seed production and cotton yields were higher in 1998 than in 1997 regardless of velvetleaf density. Velvetleaf density had no effect on the fresh weight, dry weight, and stem diameter of velvetleaf plants in 1997. But in 1998, all these parameters decreased significantly with increasing velvetleaf density. Velvetleaf seed production in 1998 was nearly twice that in 1997. Averaged over velvetleaf densities, the greatest number of seed were produced between nodes 6 and 20 in 1997 and between nodes 1 and 10 in 1998. In both years, cotton yield loss increased with velvetleaf density. Maximum yield loss was 84% at 3.5 velvetleaf plants m−1 of row. Yield losses of 5 and 10% were caused by 0.2 and 0.4 velvetleaf plants m−1 of row (1,930 and 4,110 plants ha−1), respectively, in 1997 and by 0.03 and 0.08 velvetleaf plants m−1 of row (360 and 850 plants ha−1), respectively, in 1998. To understand better the applicability of these results, we hypothesized that environmental variation caused differences in measured responses between 1997 and 1998. Therefore, kriging methods were used to fit correlations between observed rainfall and growing degree days (GDD) each year at the experiment site. Results based on climate data from 4 yr at 110 sites indicated that inference space was higher for GDD than for rainfall. The conditions observed at the experiment site in 1997 were deemed most appropriate for the recommendations made in the surrounding area.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville BXN 47‘ and ‘Deltapine 51’Action thresholdscompetitiondegree-dayseconomic thresholdsheat unitsinference spaceinterpolation domainsemivariogram
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 94 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anderson, R. N., Menges, R. M., and Conn, J. S. 1985. Variability in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and reproduction beyond its current range in North America. Weed Sci. 33:507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Ladysthumb interference and seed production in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:326–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Harker, K. N. 1997. Scentless chamomile (Matricaria perforata) growth, development, and seed production. Weed Sci. 45:701–705.Google Scholar
Bowman, D. T. 1998. Variety selection. Pages 24–42 In Edmisten, K. L., ed. Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication Ag-417.Google Scholar
Brown, R. H. 1985. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) Fact Sheet Advisory Information. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Agdex No. 642V. 3 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Burnside, O. C., Fenster, C. R., Evetts, L. L., and Muvom, R. F. 1981. Germination of exhumed weed seed in Nebraska. Weed Sci. 29:577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1998. Report of the 1997 Cotton Weed Loss Committee. Pages 837–840 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, W. M., Fedders, J. M., Belesky, D. P., and Foster, J. G. 2001. Developmental dynamics of forage chicory. Agron. J. 93:443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1992. Interference of weeds with cotton. Pages 73–85 in Weeds of Cotton: Characteristics and Control. Memphis, TN: The Cotton Foundation.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O’Donovan, J. T., and O’Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressie, N.A.C. 1993. Page 109 in Statistics for Spatial Data. New York: J. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management in Illinois. Weed Technol. 11:828–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed Survey—Southern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:299–303.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L. 2000. The cotton plant. Pages 4–15 In Edmisten, K. L., ed. Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Publication Ag-417.Google Scholar
Evetts, L. L. and Burnside, O. C. 1973. Early root and shoot development of nine plant species. Weed Sci. 21:289–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, K. E. 1983. Heat Unit Calculations in Cotton Crop and InsectModels. Advances in Agricultural Technology, Oakland, CA: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Services, Publication AAT-W-23. 23 p.Google Scholar
Hartgerink, A. P. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1984. Seedling-scale environment heterogeneity influences individual fitness and population structure. Ecology 65:198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, A. B. and Constable, G. A. 1984. Irrigation for crops in a subhumid environment. VII. Evaluation of irrigation strategies for cotton. Irrig. Sci. 5:75–94.Google Scholar
Khedir, K. D. and Roeth, F. W. 1981. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed populations in six continuous-corn (Zea mays) fields. Weed Sci. 29:485–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, R. J., Hughes, L. B. Jr., and Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Examination of microorganisms and deterioration resistance mechanisms associated with velvetleaf seed. Agron. J. 76:745–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leon, A. J., Lee, M., and Andrade, F. H. 2001. Quantitative trait loci for growing degree days to flowering and photoperiod response in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 102:497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)—velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. Spatial variability. Pages 303–330 in SAS® Systems for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Lotz, L.A.P., Christensen, S., Cloutier, D. et al. 1996. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields based on the relative leaf area of weeds. Weed Res. 36:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meredith, M. P. and Stehman, S. V. 1991. Repeated measures experiments in forestry. Can. J. For. Res. 21:957–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1991. Intriguing world of weeds: velvetleaf. Weed Technol. 5:253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, C. D. and Chandler, J. M. 1993. Interaction of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) plants is affected by their interaction for light. Weed Sci. 41:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Sattin, M., Zanin, G., and Berti, A. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. E., Pitblado, R. E., and Brown, R. H. 1974. Velvetleaf. OMAF Factsheet AGDEX 642. 4 p.Google Scholar
Smith, B. S., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:799–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti, (Malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 30:407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. W., Dwyer, L. M., and Carrigan, L. L. 1998. Phenological temperature response of maize. Agron J. 90:73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1986. Genocological variation in recently established populations of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Can. J. Bot. 64:1632–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 90. Velvetleaf. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 68:1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Hamill, A. S. 1985. Effects of soil pH on competitive ability and leaf nutrient content of corn (Zea mays L.) and three weed species. Weed Sci. 33:447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Brecke, B. J., Bridges, D. C., Chandler, J. M., Hayes, R., Nichols, R. L., and Snipes, C. E. 1998. A beltwide perspective on new weed management technologies in cotton. Pages 846–847 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Coble, H. D., York, A. C., and Monks, D. W. 1996. The niche for herbicide-resistant crops in U.S. agriculture. Pages 213–230 In Duke, S. O., ed. Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Agricultural, Environmental, Economic, Regulatory, and Technical Aspects. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Weed management systems for oil seed crops. Pages 343–400 In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Winter, D. M. 1960. The development of the seed of velvetleaf. I. Ovule and embryo. Am. J. Bot. 47:8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yun, J. I. and Taylor, S. E. 1986. Adaptive implications of leaf thickness for sun-and shade-grown velvetleaf. Ecology 67:1314–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, D. L. and Harville, D. A. 1991. A random field approach to the analysis of field plot experiments and other spatial experiments. Biometrics 47:223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar