Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-llmch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T07:42:03.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Competition of Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
R. H. Crowley
Affiliation:
Univ. of Arkansas, Southeast Rest. Ext. Center, Monticello, AR 71655
J. E. Street
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830
J. A. McGuire
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville 213’) was grown with densities of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.) or redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) ranging from 0 to 32 weeds/15 m of row. Regression of seed cotton yields on weed density revealed a linear decrease in yield with increasing weed densities. In the 3 yr these studies were conducted, losses in hand harvested yields of seed cotton ranged from 34 to 43 kg/ha for each sickledpod plant/15 m of row and 21 to 38 kg/ha for each redroot pigweed plant per 15 m of row. Under comparable weed densities, yields of seed cotton differed only slightly when hand harvested or mechanically harvested. Mechanical harvesting efficiencies of cotton were reduced only at higher densities of weeds. The percentage of trash in cotton generally increased with increasing density of weeds. Neither sicklepod nor redroot pigweed affected cotton grade or micronaire.

Type
Research Article
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

1. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton II. cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 26:484487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Peterson, R. G. 1977. Use and misuse of multiple comparison procedures. Agron. J. 69:205208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, H. G. 1960. Pages 107109 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 481 pp.Google Scholar