Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:37:45.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to Coastal Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Density in a No-tillage System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William K. Vencill ,
Luis J. Giraudo  and
George W. Langdale
William K. Vencill
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 and South. Piedmont Res. Ctr., Watkinsville, GA 30677
Luis J. Giraudo
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 and South. Piedmont Res. Ctr., Watkinsville, GA 30677
George W. Langdale
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 and South. Piedmont Res. Ctr., Watkinsville, GA 30677
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were established in 1989 and 1990 at the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center near Watkinsville, GA, to determine effects of coastal bermudagrass density on cotton in a conservation tillage system. Cotton height, canopy width, leaf area indices, and seed cotton yields were determined at coastal bermudagrass densities of 0 to 3600 kg ha−1 as achieved by herbicide inputs. Soil water measurements were recorded in cotton plots with a range of coastal bermudagrass densities using time domain reflectometry. Cotton growth and yields were reduced by coastal bermudagrass competition both years of the study. At the highest coastal bermudagrass density of 3600 kg ha−1, cotton height was reduced compared to cotton alone as early as 5 wk after planting. Seed cotton yields were reduced 25% at the highest coastal bermudagrass densities both years of the study. At the 15-cm soil depth, coastal bermudagrass significantly reduced soil water in cotton. Soil water in cotton at 30, 45, and 60 cm was not affected by coastal bermudagrass.

Keywords

Coastal bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon L. # CYNDAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 315’Conservation tillagesoil moisture relationsgrowth analysistime domain reflectometryweed competitionCYNDA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 455 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Brown, R. H. and Blazer, R. E. 1968. Leaf area index in pasture growth. Herbage Abstracts 38:1–9.Google Scholar
2. Bryson, C. T. 1989. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:385–424.Google Scholar
3. Carreker, J. R., Wilkinson, S. R., Barnett, A. P., and Box, J. E. 1977. Soil and water management systems for sloping land. Agric. Res. Serv.—South. Region (A77. 15:S–160). 76 pp.Google Scholar
4. Constable, G. A. and Gleeson, A. C. 1977. Growth and distribution of dry matter in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 28:249–256.Google Scholar
5. Crosson, P. 1981. Conservation tillage and conventional tillage: a comparative assessment. Soil Conserv. Soc. Am., Akeny, IA. 35 pp.Google Scholar
6. Grantz, D. A., Perry, M. H., and Meinzer, F. C. 1990. Using time-domain reflectometry to measure soil water in Hawaiian sugarcane. Agron. J. 82:144–146.Google Scholar
7. Green, J. D., Murray, D. S., and Stone, J. F. 1988. Soil water relations of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeginifolium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 36:740–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hillel, D. and Talpoz, H. 1976. Simulation of root growth and its effects on the patterns of soil water uptake by a non-uniform root system. Soil. Sci. 121:307–312.Google Scholar
9. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Pages 25–31 in The World's Worst Weeds—Distribution and Biology. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P., eds. Univ. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
10. Jordan, W. R. 1986. Water deficits and reproduction. Pages 63–73 in Cotton Physiology. Meuney, J. and Stewart, J. M., eds. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
11. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Pages 139–193 in Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S., eds. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
12. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interaction among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
13. Riffle, M. S., Murray, D. S., Stone, J. F., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Soil-water relations and interference between devil's claw (Proboscidea louisianica) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 38:39–44.Google Scholar
14. Taylor, H. M. and Klepper, B. 1978. The role of rooting characteristics in the supply of water to plants. Adv. Agron. 30:99–128.Google Scholar
15. Topp, G. C. and Davis, J. L. 1985. Measurement of soil water content using time-domain reflectometry: A field evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Topp, G. C., Davis, J. L., and Annan, A. P. 1982. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content using time domain reflectometry: 1. Applications to water fronts and steep gradients. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:672–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Watson, D. J. 1958. The dependence of net assimilation rate on leaf area index. Ann. Bot. 22:37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar