Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:55:22.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and Soybean (Glycine max) Planting Date on Weed Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Tracy E. Klingaman  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Tracy E. Klingaman
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Separate field experiments were conducted for cotton and soybean in 1990 and 1991 to determine the influence of planting date on yield loss due to interspecific interference from entireleaf morningglory and sicklepod and to determine the relative competitiveness of each weed species. Percent soybean yield loss due to weed interference increased as planting date was delayed from early May to early June. Averaged over weed species, yield losses from 1.7 weeds m−1 row were 10, 18, and 20% for soybeans planted in early May, mid-May, and early June, respectively. Yield loss from 6.7 weeds m−1 row were 17, 31, and 35% at the early May, mid-May, and early June planting dates, respectively. Percent seed cotton yield losses averaged over weed species in 1990 were 33 and 28% for the early May and early June planting dates, respectively, at 1.7 weeds m−1 and 50% for both planting dates at weed densities of 6.7 plants m−1. The only experimental factor that significantly affected seed cotton yield in 1991 was weed density. Unlike soybeans, planting date had little effect on weed interference in cotton. Entireleaf morningglory was more competitive than sicklepod in both crops. Results suggest that selection of optimum soy bean planting dates may be a viable means of reducing losses due to weed interference.

Keywords

Entireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHGsicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia L. # CASOBcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Deltapine 50’soybean, Glycine max L. Merr. ‘Lloyd’Interspecific interferenceweed density
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 61 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Baldwin, F. L. and Hall, S. 1992. University of Arkansas Soybean Weed Control Program User's Guide. Coop. Ext. Serv., Little Rock.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1977. Competition, threshold levels, and control of common cocklebur in soybeans. Miss. Agric. Exp. Stn. and Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 83. 27 pp.Google Scholar
3. Bozsa, R. C., Oliver, L. R., and Driver, T. L. 1989. Intraspecific and interspecific sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference. Weed Sci. 37:670–673.Google Scholar
4. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1985. Influence of weed management and cropping system on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed in the soil. Weed Sci. 33:800–804.Google Scholar
5. 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.Google Scholar
6. Coble, H. D. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol. 6:191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Daniel, J. T., Templeton, G. E., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Fox, W. T. 1973. Biological control of northern jointvetch in rice with an endemic fungal pathogen. Weed Sci. 21:303–307.Google Scholar
8. Forcella, F., Oskoui, K. E., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Application of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecol. Applications 3:74–83.Google Scholar
9. Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Major, C. S. 1992. Addressing public fears over pesticides. Weed Technol. 6:471–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Mosier, D. G. 1986. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and entireleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) interference on soybean (Glycine max). Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville. 158 pp.Google Scholar
12. Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
13. Oliver, L. R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1986. Weed competition and economic thresholds. Pages 71–78 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd ed. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
14. Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Field competition between entireleaf morningglory and soybean. I. Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 24:482–488.Google Scholar
15. Shelby, P. W., Hayes, R. H., and Mitchell, G. A. 1989. Weed interference with cotton as influenced by tillage. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:100.Google Scholar
16. Wilkerson, G. G., Jones, J. W., Coble, H. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Soyweed: A simulation model of soybean and cocklebur growth and competition. Agron. J. 82:1003–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1988. HERB v2.0: Herbicide decision model for postemergence weed control in soybeans. Users Manual. Bull. No. 113. Crop Sci Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar