Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:03:52.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Competition in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven M. Brown ,
Ted Whitwell  and
Joe E. Street
Steven M. Brown
Affiliation:
Agron. & Soils Dep., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Ted Whitwell
Affiliation:
Agron. & Soils Dep., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Joe E. Street
Affiliation:
Mississippi State Univ., Delta Branch Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to evaluate effects of various densities of bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. ♯ CYNDA] in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 213’) during the initial and second seasons following grass establishment and to evaluate bermudagrass competition in three cotton row spacings. During the season of grass establishment, densities of 1 to 16 plugs/7.5 m of cotton row had minimal effects on yield. Established, perennated bermudagrass was much more competitive. During second-season competition, 1 plug/7.5 m had formed a 76% ground cover and reduced yields by 600 kg/ha (25%) or more. The highest densities reduced yields 60 to 80%. In separate experiments, a cotton row spacing of 0.5 m reduced bermudagrass ground cover compared to 1.5 m row spacing.

Keywords

Row spacingweed densityCYNDA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , July 1985 , pp. 503 - 506
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. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Influence of weed competition on cotton. I. Sicklepod and morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Influence of weed competition on cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and Crowley, R. H. 1980. Influence of time of planting and distance from the cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) row of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa), prickly sida (Sida spinosa) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) on competitiveness with cotton. Weed Sci. 28:568–572.Google Scholar
4. 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
5. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competitiveness of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.Google Scholar
6. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida and venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.Google Scholar
7. Chew, V. 1976. Uses and abuses of Duncan's multiple range test. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 89:251–253.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.Google Scholar
9. Ivy, H. W. and Baker, R. S. 1972. Prickly sida control and competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 20:137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, J. R. 1975. Influence of yellow nutsedge competition on furrow-irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 23:171–175.Google Scholar
11. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, J. R. 1983. Influence of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus)–free periods on yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 31:803–807.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.Google Scholar
13. Rogers, N. K., Buchanan, G. A., and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Influence of row spacing on weed competition with cotton. Weed Sci. 24:410–413.Google Scholar
14. Smith, D. T. and Tseng, U. H. 1970. Cotton development and yield as related to pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) density. Proc. Cotton Physiology–Defoliation Conf. 24:37–38.Google Scholar
15. 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
16. Street, J. E., Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Influence of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) on competitiveness of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 29:253–256.Google Scholar
17. Whitewell, T. and Brown, S. M. 1983. Report of 1982 cotton weed loss committee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Res. Prod. Conf. 7:259–264.Google Scholar