Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:16:50.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) Density Effects on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Harvest and Economic Value

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark L. Wood ,
Don S. Murray ,
J. C. Banks ,
Laval M. Verhalen ,
R. Brent Westerman  and
Kim B. Anderson
Mark L. Wood
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
J. C. Banks
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Laval M. Verhalen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
R. Brent Westerman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Kim B. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to evaluate the effects of six johnsongrass densities on picker- vs. stripper-harvest efficiency, fiber properties, loan rate, and lint yield loss of cotton. The weed densities employed were 0 (the check), 3, 4, 5, 8, and 15 plants/15 m of row. With three or fewer weeds in 1996 and four or fewer in 1997, harvest efficiencies were 4.9 to 7.6% higher for stripper- than for picker-harvested cotton. At four and higher weed densities in 1996 and at five and higher in 1997, differences in harvest efficiency between the two machines were not significant. For each weed per 15 m of row, stripper-harvest efficiency in 1996 and 1997 was reduced 0.3 and 0.6%, respectively; picker-harvest efficiency was not affected by the johnsongrass densities included herein. Fiber fineness (i.e., micronaire) was significantly reduced at densities of 8 weeds/15 m of row in 1997 and at 15 weeds in both years. A questionable increase in staple length was detected at the 3-weed density in 1996. Reductions in fiber strength were noted in 1997 at densities of 3, 8, and 15 weeds/15 m of row. No influences on fiber length uniformity were shown. In 1996 the loan rate for picker-harvested lint was 570 points/kg higher than for stripper-harvested lint at 8 weeds/15 m of row. In 1997 it was 741, 801, 1,058, 1,225, 1,074, and 1,329 points/kg higher at weed densities of 0, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 15 plants/15 m of row, respectively. In 1997 picker-harvest loan rate was reduced 49 points/kg of lint, and stripper-harvest loan rate was reduced 85 points. Over both years, picker-harvest lint yield was reduced 32 to 43 kg/ha (3.9 to 5.5%) for each weed per 15 m of row, and stripper-harvest lint yield was reduced 29 to 43 kg/ha (3.5 to 5.2%).

Keywords

Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. #3 SORHAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster HS-26’Fiber propertiesharvest efficiencyinterferencelint yieldloan ratepicker harvestSORHAstripper harvest
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 495 - 501
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

Albers-Nelson, M. R., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Goad, C. L. 2000. Establishment techniques for common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium). Weed Technol. 14: 463–470.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1987. Influence of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density and period of competition on cotton yield. Weed Sci. 35: 63–67.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18: 149–154.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19: 576–579.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25: 106–110.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26: 484–488.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—Southern states: Broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 299–313.Google Scholar
Hake, K., Bragg, K., Mauney, J., and Metzer, B. 1990. Causes of high and low micronaire. Cotton Physiol. Today 1/ 12: 1–4.Google Scholar
Jacobson, B. D., Murray, D. S., and Stone, J. F. 1994. Soil-water extraction profiles of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed species. Weed Technol. 8: 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and interaction of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37: 339–344.Google Scholar
Kletke, D. and Doye, D. G. 2000. Oklahoma Farm and Ranch Custom Rates, 1999–2000. Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension Service Current Rep. CR-205.Google Scholar
Pawlak, J. A., Murray, D. S., and Smith, B. S. 1990. Influence of capsule age on germination of nondormant jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) seed. Weed Technol. 4: 31–34.Google Scholar
Ramey, H. H. Jr. 1999. Classing of fiber. In Smith, C. W. and Cothren, J. T., eds. Cotton: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 709–727.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. B., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1996. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 10: 107–114.Google Scholar
Rowland, M. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 47: 305–309.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T., Baker, R. V., and Steele, G. L. 2000. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14: 122–126.Google Scholar
Vories, E. D. and Bonner, C. M. 1995. Comparison of Harvest Methods for Dryland Cotton. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 945. 16 p.Google Scholar
Wood, M. L., Murray, D. S., Westerman, R. B., Verhalen, L. M., and Claypool, P. L. 1999. Full-season interference of Ipomoea hederacea with Gossypium hirsutum . Weed Sci. 47: 693–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar