Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:37:13.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Yield Response to Cultivation Timing and Frequency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Snipes ,
Daniel L. Colvin ,
Michael G. Patterson  and
Stephen H. Crawford
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Miss. Agric. and For. Exp. Stn., Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Fla., Gainesville, FL 32611
Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Stephen H. Crawford
Affiliation:
La. State Univ. Agric. Cent., La. Agric. Exp. Stn., Northeast Res. Stn., St. Joseph, LA 71366
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A four-state study was initiated in 1988 to evaluate the influence of cultivation frequency and initiation on the cotton plant. When cultivations were initiated at 1 or 2 wk after emergence and cultivated weekly at a frequency of zero, one, two, four, or six times, seed cotton yields were not affected on a consistent basis. When averaged over cultivation frequency, seed cotton yields were increased for three of nine year-locations when cultivations were initiated at 2 wk after emergence when compared with 1 wk after emergence. At two locations, when seed cotton yields were averaged over initiation timing, it was shown that only two cultivations were necessary to achieve optimum seed cotton yields.

Keywords

Cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DES 119’Cultural controlmechanical controlweed-free response
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 31 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Boyle, M., Frankenberger, W. T. Jr., and Stolzy, L. H. 1989. The influence of organic matter on soil aggregation and water infiltration. J. Prod. Agric. 2:290–299.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A., and Hiltbold, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25:132–134.Google Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1964. Influence of tillage, row spacing, and atrazine in sorghum and weed yields from nonirrigated sorghum across Nebraska. Weeds 12:211–215.Google Scholar
4. Dowler, C. C., and Hauser, E. W. 1975. Weed control systems in cotton on Tifton loamy sand soil. Weed Sci. 23:40–42.Google Scholar
5. Dowler, C. C., and Hauser, E. W. 1974. The effect of cultivation on weeds controlled by fluometuron in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:112–115.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W., Cecil, S. R., and Dowler, C. C. 1973. Systems of weed control for peanuts. Weed Sci. 21:176–180.Google Scholar
7. Russell, W. J., Fehr, W. R., and Mitchell, R. L. 1971. Effects of row cultivation on growth and yield of soybeans. Agron. J. 63:772–774.Google Scholar
8. Snipes, C. E., Barrentine, W. L., and Baker, R. S. 1989. Herbicide application technology in Mississippi cotton. Miss. Agric. and For. Exp. Stn. Bull. 956.Google Scholar
9. Snipes, C. E., and Jordan, J. H. 1989. Response of band and broadcast application of fluometuron to cultivation. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. p. 387.Google Scholar
10. Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32:95–100.Google Scholar
11. Whitaker, F. D., Heineman, H. G., and Wishmeier, W. H. 1973. Chemical weed controls effect run-off erosion in corn yields. J. Soil Water Conserv. 28:174–175.Google Scholar