Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:50:34.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and control of smellmelon (Cucumis melo var. dudaim Naud.) in cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chris H. Tingle ,
Greg L. Steele  and
James M. Chandler
Greg L. Steele
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, 2474 TAMU, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, 2474 TAMU, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Smellmelon is becoming a problem weed in southern Texas and Louisiana cotton-producing areas. Experiments evaluating the density and duration of smellmelon competition are necessary for the recommendation of appropriate control practices to minimize yield loss. In 1999 and 2000, field experiments were initiated to determine the density, critical period of competition, and potential control measures for smellmelon in cotton. Although the degree of competition differed between the years, similar trends were observed with respect to smellmelon density. As few as 2 or 3 smellmelon plants 10 m−1 row reduced yield at least 17% each year. When densities were increased to 5 or 10 plants 10 m−1 row, yield reductions increased to at least 34%. Results from the duration of smellmelon competition in 1999 and 2000 indicated that cotton should remain smellmelon free for 1 to 7 wk after planting (WAP) and 2.5 to 6 WAP, respectively. Results from the control studies indicate that smellmelon size at application influences control. Early-season control strategies are necessary to reduce yield losses associated with smellmelon competition.

Keywords

BromoxynilfluometuronglyphosateMSMApyrithiobacsmellmelon, Cucumis melo var. dudaim Naud. CUMMDcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DPL 436 RR’Weed interferenceweed densitythresholdcrop yield loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , August 2003 , pp. 586 - 591
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Cotton Varieties Planted—2000 Crop. Memphis, TN: USDA AMS—Cotton Program. 10 p.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1987. Influence of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density and period of competition on cotton yield. Weed Sci. 35:63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.Google Scholar
Cordes, R. C. and Bauman, T. F. 1984. Field competition between ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:364–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Richardson, TX: The University of Texas-Dallas. pp. 1508–1509.Google Scholar
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
Ghosheh, H. Z., Holshouser, D. L., and Chandler, J. M. 1996. The critical period of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 44:944–947.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 306–309.Google Scholar
Mahon, J. and Low, A. 1972. Growing degree days as a measure of temperature effects on cotton. Cotton Grow. Rev. 43:39–49.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. H. 1996. Staple—a new cotton herbicide from DuPont. Pages 49–50 In Dugger, P. and Richter, D. A., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference of the National Cotton Council. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybean. I. Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 24:482–488.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Chandler, J. M. 1998. Devil's-claw (Proboscidea louisianica) and smellmelon (Cucumis melo var. dudaim) control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with pyrithiobac. Weed Sci. 12:19–22.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:553–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SPSS] Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 1998. Systat Version 8.0 for Windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS Science Marketing Department.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1965. Competitive effects of three foxtail species of soybeans. Weeds 13:191–193.Google Scholar
Tingle, C. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1999. Smellmelon (Cucumis melo) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) control with Staple and Roundup Ultra combinations in Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:256.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14:49–51.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. A Review. Corvalis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. pp. 83–93.Google Scholar