Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:24:15.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) interference in wide row and ultra narrow row cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William T. Molin ,
Debbie Boykin ,
Josie A. Hugie ,
H. Harish Ratnayaka  and
Tracy M. Sterling
Debbie Boykin
Affiliation:
Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Stoneville, MS 38776
Josie A. Hugie
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
H. Harish Ratnayaka
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA 70125
Tracy M. Sterling
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the effect of spurred anoda interference on yield loss of two cotton cultivars, ‘Delta Pine 5415’ and ‘Pima S-6’, grown under wide (1 m) (WR) and ultra narrow (0.25 m) row (UNR) spacings. The relationship between spurred anoda density and dry weight per plot was linear each year. At a spurred anoda density of 8 m−2, spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m−2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively. However, spurred anoda did not interfere with seed cotton yield in 2001, which was probably attributable to the low branch development in that year. Yield losses exceeded 55% at a spurred anoda density of 8 m−2 compared with controls in both WR and UNR. The effect of spurred anoda density on boll numbers was nearly identical in 2000 and 2002, regardless of cotton cultivar and row spacing. Boll weights decreased in response to spurred anoda interference. Spurred anoda interference resulted in a decrease in cotton branch dry weight in WR but not in UNR. The yield decrease as a result of spurred anoda interference in WR was due to reduction in boll retention or fruiting sites (predicated on a decrease in branch weight). However, in UNR, the yield decrease was due to plant mortality; the plant density of both cotton cultivars decreased by one plant for each additional spurred anoda, but the yield per plant for surviving plants remained constant. Neither WR nor UNR cotton had significant advantage in response to spurred anoda interference. The decreased boll weight observed in UNR, and the failure to increase boll numbers m−2 to compensate for decreased boll weight in UNR compared with WR, may limit its appeal to cotton producers.

Keywords

Spurred anoda, Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. ANVCRcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DP 5415’Gossypium barbadense L. ‘Pima S-6’Ultra narrow row management system (UNR)wide row management system (WR)
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 651 - 657
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

Allen, R. D. 1995. Dissection of oxidative stress tolerance using transgenic plants. Plant Physiol 107:1049–1054.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcutt, J. W. 2002. Ladysthumb interference and seed production in cotton. Weed Sci 50:326–332.Google Scholar
Atwell, S. D. 1996. Influence of ultra narrow row on cotton growth and development. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 2:1187–1188.Google Scholar
Atwell, S. D., Perkins, R., Guice, B., Stewart, W., Harden, J., and Odeneal, T. 1996. Essential steps to successful ultra narrow row on cotton production. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 2:1210–1211.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, , Macchia, M., and Stefani, A. 1994. Effects of shade on reproduction and some morphological characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, Datura stramonium L. and Sorghum halepense L. Pers. S. Weed Res 34:283–288.Google Scholar
Boykin, D. L., Carle, R. R., Ranney, C. D., and Shanklin, R. 1995. Weather Date Summary for 1964–1993 Stoneville Mississippi. msa.ars.usda.gov/ms/Stoneville/jwdsrc/wbook/wbook.htm.Google Scholar
Brandon, H., Laws, F., and Muzzi, D. eds. 2004. Delta Agricultural Digest. Clarksdale, MS: Farm. P. 18.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M. 1977. Interference of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci 25:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J. M. and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1983. Yields of three cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars as influenced by spurred anoda (Anoda cristata). Weed Sci 31:303–307.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 45:392–407.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:299–313.Google Scholar
Flint, E. P., Patterson, D. T., and Beyers, J. L. 1983. Interference and temperature effects on growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 31:892–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinn, G. 1974. Abscission of cotton floral buds and bolls as influenced by factors affecting photosynthesis and respiration. Crop Sci 14:291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinn, G., Mauney, J. R., and Fry, K. E. 1981. Irrigation scheduling and plant population effects on growth, bloom rates, boll abscission, and yield of cotton. Agron. J 73:529–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gwathmey, C. O. 1996. Ultra narrow cotton research in Tennessee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:68.Google Scholar
Gwathmey, C. O. 1998. Reaching the objectives of the ultra narrow row cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:91–92.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic. 892 p.Google Scholar
Inzé, D. and Van Montagu, M. 1995. Oxidative stress in plants. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol 6:153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, W. R. 1970. Growth of cotton seedlings in relation to maximum daily plant water potential. Agron. J 62:699–701.Google Scholar
Jost, P. H. and Cothren, J. T. 2000. Growth and yield comparisons of cotton planted in conventional and ultra-narrow row spacings. Crop Sci 40:430–435.Google Scholar
Jost, P. H. and Cothren, J. T. 2001. Phenotypic alterations and crop maturity differences in ultra-narrow and conventionally spaced cotton. Crop Sci 41:1150–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, T. 1998. UNR cotton production system trial in the mid south. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:87–89.Google Scholar
Kerby, T., Cassman, K. G., and Keeley, M. 1990. Genotypes and plant densities for narrow row cotton systems, 1: height, nodes, earliness, and location of yield. Crop Sci 30:644–649.Google Scholar
Mauney, J. R. 1979. Production of fruiting points. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:256–260.Google Scholar
Molin, W. T., Hugie, J. A., and Hirase, K. 2004. Prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.) and spurge (Euphorbia hyssopifolia L.) response to wide row and ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) management systems. Weed Biol. Manag 4:222–229.Google Scholar
Molin, W. T. and Khán, R. A. 1996. Differential tolerance of cotton (Gossypium sp.) cultivars to the herbicide prometryn. Pest. Biochem. Physiol 56:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, J. M. 1987. Cotton. New York: J. Wiley. 78 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1979. Effect of chilling on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and spurred anoda (Anoda cristata). Weed Sci 27:473–479.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Highsmith, M. T., and Flint, E. P. 1988. Effects of temperature and CO2 concentration on the growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 36:751–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratnayaka, H. H., Molin, W. T., and Sterling, T. M. 2003. Physiological and antioxidant responses of cotton and spurred anoda under interference and mild drought. J. Exp. Bot 54:2293–2305.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2005. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Shaaltiel, Y., Glazer, A., Bocion, P. F., and Gressel, J. 1988. Cross tolerance to herbicidal and environmental oxidants of plant biotypes tolerant to paraquat, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 31:13–23.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed interference with snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 31:81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unruh, B. L., Norton, E. R., and Silvertooth, J. C. 1994. Boll Sampling to Predict Lint Yield in Upland and Pima Cotton. Cotton, A University of Arizona Report. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Series P-96:44–48.Google Scholar
Van Gessel, M. J., Schroeder, J., and Westra, P. 1998. Comparative growth and development of four spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) accessions. Weed Sci 46:91–98.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:169–174.Google Scholar