Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:55:32.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Densities on Competitiveness of Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) and Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. E. Street ,
G. A. Buchanan ,
R. H. Crowley  and
J. A. McGuire
J. E. Street
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
G. A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
R. H. Crowley
Affiliation:
Univ. of Arkansas located at Southeast Res. Ext. Center, Monticello, AR 71655
J. A. McGuire
Affiliation:
Res. Data Anal., Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted from 1973 through 1975 on Lucedale sandy loam to determine the influence of in-row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 213’) densities on the competitiveness of low-level infestations of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.) and pigweed (Amaranthus spp.). Weeds were established at densities of 0, 4, 12, and 32 weeds per 15 m of row and allowed to compete the entire season with cotton grown at densities of 5, 10, or 20 plants/m of row corresponding to 47000, 94000 and 187000 cotton plants/ha. Conventional cultural practices were employed in these experiments. Cotton yields were inversely related to weed density; however, the density of cotton did not influence the competitive effect of sicklepod or pigweed. Pigweed or sicklepod dry weed weight was reduced when competing with 187000 cotton plants/ha.

Keywords

Weed biologyweed ecologyplant interferencecotton yield

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 1981 , pp. 253 - 256
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1968. Growth, development, and yield of cotton as influenced by selected densities of several weed species. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 89.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1969. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 17:149–154.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.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., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1979. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 28:258–262.Google Scholar
6. Duncan, E. N. and Pate, J. B. 1964. The influence of the row spacing on lodging and yield of Pope cotton. Tennessee Farm and Home Sci., Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. 50:15–16.Google Scholar
7. Haizel, K. A. and Harper, J. L. 1973. The effects of density and the timing of removal of interference between barley, white mustard and wild oats. J. Appl. Ecol. 10:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hawkins, G. S. and Peacock, H. A. 1970. Yield response of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to several spacing arrangements. Agron. J. 62:578–580.Google Scholar
9. Kempthorne, O. 1962. Pages 383–385 in The Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
10. Pfeiffer, R. K. and Holmes, H. H. 1961. A study of the competition between barley and oats as influenced by barley seed rate, nitrogen level and barban treatment. Weed Res. 1:5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Weber, C. R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Competitive relationships in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron. J. 49:440–444.Google Scholar