Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:21:51.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Grown in Two Row Spacings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John H. Miller ,
Lyle M. Carter  and
Charles Carter
John H. Miller
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Shafter, CA 93263
Lyle M. Carter
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Shafter, CA 93263
Charles Carter
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Shafter, CA 93263
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tillage plus trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) and prometryn [2,4-bis (isopropylamino)-6-(methylthio)-s-triazine] and tillage plus trifluralin and fluometuron [1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea] applied as soil-incorporated preplanting treatments were compared with tillage alone in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) grown in 51-cm and 102-cm rows on fine sandy loam soil. Over 3 yr, cotton grown in 51-cm rows yielded 15% more than cotton grown in 102-cm rows. Final cotton emergence was not altered by weed-control treatment or by planting pattern. Weed-control treatments with herbicides provided essentially complete, season-long control of grass and broadleaf weeds. At cotton layby, more weeds were in no-herbicide plots with 51-cm rows compared with 102-cm rows, but at cotton harvest numbers of weeds in both row patterns were essentially equal.

Keywords

Plant competitioncotton standyieldweed controlrow spacing
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 1983 , pp. 236 - 241
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. Andries, J. A., Douglas, A. G., and Albritton, R. C. 1971. Performance of normal, okra, and super okra leaf types in three row widths. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
2. Andries, J. A., Douglas, A. G., and Cole, A. W. 1974. Herbicide, leaf type and row spacing in cotton. Weed Sci. 22:496–499.Google Scholar
3. Arle, H. F. 1973. Weed Control in narrow-row cotton. Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf. pp. 16–18.Google Scholar
4. Baker, D. N. and Meyers, R. E. 1966. Influence of stand geometry on light interception and net photosynthesis in cotton. Crop Sci. 6:15–19.Google Scholar
5. Baker, R. S. and Tupper, G. R. 1972. Weed control in narrow row cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:141–146.Google Scholar
6. Baker, S. H. 1976. Response of cotton to row pattern and plant populations. Agron. J. 68:85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Briggs, R. E. and Patterson, L. L. 1969. Narrow row spacing of cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
8. Douglas, A. G. and Andries, J. A. 1970. Narrow row cotton culture in Mississippi. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
9. El-Zik, K. M. and Walhood, V. T. 1979. Short season cotton production in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf. pp. 51–53.Google Scholar
10. George, A. G., McCutcheon, O. D., Brooks, C. R., Curley, R. G., El-Zik, K. M., Johnson, R. E., and Walhood, V. T. 1980. Summary report of narrow row cotton. Div. Agric. Sci., Univ. of Calif. Spec. Rep. 3205. 40.Google Scholar
11. Hawkins, B. S. and Peacock, H. A. 1973. Influence of row width and population density on yield and fiber characteristics of cotton. Agron. J. 65:47–51.Google Scholar
12. Hoskinson, P. E., Mullins, J. A., and McCutcheon, T. 1974. Narrow row cotton in Tennessee. Tenn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 535. 24.Google Scholar
13. Johnson, R. E. 1969. Spacing effect on growth of cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 105–108.Google Scholar
14. Koli, S. E. and Morrill, L. G. 1976. Influence of nitrogen, narrow rows, and plant population on cotton yield and growth. Agron. J. 68:897–901.Google Scholar
15. Miller, J. H., Carter, C. H., Garber, R. H., and DeVay, J. E. 1979. Weed and disease responses to herbicides in single-and double-row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 27:444–449.Google Scholar
16. Rogers, N. K., Buchanan, G. A., and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Influence of row spacing on weed competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 24:410–413.Google Scholar
17. Walhood, V. T. 1979. Short season cotton in the Imperial Valley with special reference to pest management. Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf. pp. 48–51.Google Scholar
18. Walhood, V. T. and Johnson, R. E. 1976. Interception of solar radiation by a constant population of cotton plants. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. pp. 70–71.Google Scholar
19. Wanjura, D. F. and Hudspeth, E. B. 1963. Effects of close-row spacing on cotton yields on the Texas High Plains. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. PR-2266.Google Scholar
20. Wiese, A. F., Hudspeth, E. B. Jr., and Ray, L. L. 1965. Weed control in broadcast cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 18:102–103.Google Scholar
21. Wiese, A. F. and Smith, D. T. 1971. Herbicides in narrow-row cotton culture. Crop Sci. 11:518–520.Google Scholar