Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:40:19.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Interference between Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and Four Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Dennis Elmore ,
Michael A. Brown  and
Elizabeth P. Flint
C. Dennis Elmore
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Michael A. Brown
Affiliation:
South. Region, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Elizabeth P. Flint
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early weed and crop interference was examined in a greenhouse pot experiment combining aspects of additive, substitutive, and diallel designs. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. 'Stoneville 213′) and four weeds {purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.), large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.], velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.)} were grown singly and in all possible combinations of pairs including reciprocals for 5 weeks in 10-cm plastic pots. After 5 weeks large crabgrass was the tallest species in all combinations except when grown with purple nutsedge. Purple nutsedge, however, had more leaf area and greater dry weight than all other species. Height, leaf area, and dry weight were lowest in prickly sida. Mean relative yields in mixtures (a measure of competitive ability) were 1.90, 1.15, 1.13, 0.86, and 0.41 for purple nutsedge, large crabgrass, cotton, velvetleaf, and prickly sida, respectively, when grown with the other four species as associates. Conversely, purple nutsedge and cotton as associates depressed mean relative yields of competing species to 0.59 and 0.94. Large crabgrass, velvetleaf, and prickly sida as associates increased mean relative yields of competing species to 1.17, 1.18, and 1.55, respectively. Analysis of these data and replacement-series diagrams indicated that purple nutsedge was the most competitive, prickly sida the least, and the other species were intermediate and approximately equivalent in competitive ability.

Keywords

Cyperus rotundusSida spinosaDigitaria sanguinalisAbutilon theophrastireplacement series
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 1983 , pp. 200 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Campbell, T. A. 1979. Diallel analysis of early competition between sweet corn and four weed species. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 104:893–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida and venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Colton, C. E. and Einhellig, F. H. 1980. Allelopathic mechanisms of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic., Malvaceae) on soybean. Am. J. Bot. 67:1407–1413.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1980. Inhibition of turnip (Brassica rapa) seed germination by velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed. Weed Sci. 28:658–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Fowler, N. L. 1978. Competition and coexistence in a North Carolina grassland. III. Mixtures of component species. J. Ecol. 70:77–82.Google Scholar
6. Friedman, T. and Horowitz, M. 1971. Biologically active substances in subterranean parts of purple nutsedge. Weed Sci. 19:398–401.Google Scholar
7. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press, New York. 895.Google Scholar
8. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 547. 32.Google Scholar
9. Ivy, H. W. and Baker, R. S. 1972. Prickly sida control and competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 20:137–139.Google Scholar
10. Jacquard, F. and Caputa, J. 1970. Comparaison de trois modeles d'analyse des relations sociales entre speces vegetales. Ann. Amelior. Plantes 20:115–158.Google Scholar
11. Mack, R. N. and Harper, J. L. 1977. Interference in dune annuals: spatial pattern and neighbourhood effects. J. Ecol. 65:345–363.Google Scholar
12. Palmer, R. D. 1980. Category I — weed survey — southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rept. 33:165–197.Google Scholar
13. Trenbath, B. R. 1978. Models and the interpretation of mixture experiments. Pages 145–162 in Wilson, J. R., ed. Plant Relations in Pastures. CSIRO, E. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
14. Trenbath, B. R. and Harper, J. L. 1972. Neighbor effects in the genus Avena. I. Comparison of crop species. J. Appl. Ecol. 10:379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Wit, C. T. de. 1960. On competition. Versl. Landbouwkd. Onderz. 66:1–82.Google Scholar
16. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition. A review. IPPC, Corvallis, OR. 195.Google Scholar