Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:21:12.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamics of Subeconomic Threshold Populations of Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in a Peanut-Cotton-Corn Rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III ,
John Cardina  and
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
W. Carroll Johnson III
Affiliation:
For. Res. Agron., Agric. Res. Statistician, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748
John Cardina
Affiliation:
For. Res. Agron., Agric. Res. Statistician, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
Affiliation:
For. Res. Agron., Agric. Res. Statistician, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted from 1987 to 1990 to measure the dynamics of sicklepod established at subeconomic threshold populations in a peanut-cotton-corn cropping system. The experimental site had no native populations of sicklepod prior to initiation of the study. Main plots were crops in the rotation sequence plus continuous summer fallow (no crop). Subplots were: sicklepod established in the initial year of the study, sicklepod established every year of the study, and no sicklepod. Sicklepod was established at subeconomic threshold densities to simulate weed survival and seed production in fields where economic thresholds were the basis for weed management decisions. Sicklepod growing alone in fallow plots produced more seed per plant, resulting in significantly more seedlings throughout the study than sicklepod growing with crops. Sicklepod growing in corn produced the fewest seed per plant. Seed produced from subeconomic threshold densities established only in the first year caused 7-, 21-, and 20-fold increases in sicklepod populations during the next three seasons compared to the nontreated control.

Keywords

Sicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia L. # CASOBcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DeKalb DK-689’ and ‘Pioneer 3165’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Deltapine DPL-90’peanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner.’Seedbankweed population dynamicsweed seedlingsCASOB
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 364 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Bozsa, R. C., Oliver, L. R., and Driver, T. L. 1989. Intraspecific and interspecific sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference. Weed Sci. 37:670–673.Google Scholar
2. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1987. Economics of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) management. Weed Sci. 35:594–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bridges, D. C. and Walker, R. H. 1985. Influence of weed management and cropping systems on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed in soil. Weed Sci. 33:800–804.Google Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Hauser, E. W., Etheredge, W. J., and Cecil, S. R. 1976. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. Weed Sci. 24:29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Buchanan, G. A., Murray, D. S., and Hauser, E. W. 1983. Weeds and their control in peanuts. Pages 206–249 in Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX.Google Scholar
7. Burnside, O. C., Moomaw, R. S., Roeth, F. W., Wicks, G. A., and Wilson, R. G. 1986. Weed seed demise in soil in weed-free corn (Zea mays) production across Nebraska. Weed Sci. 34:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39:186–194.Google Scholar
9. Chepil, W. S. 1946. Germination of weed seeds: II. The influence of tillage treatments on germination. Sci. Agric. 26:347–357.Google Scholar
10. Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey—southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:392–407.Google Scholar
11. Harper, J. L. 1957. Ecological aspects of weed control. Outlook Agric. 1:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Johnson, W. C. III, Cardina, J., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1992. Crop and weed management effects on weed populations in a short-term corn-corn-peanut rotation. J. Prod. Agric. 5:566–570.Google Scholar
13. Johnson, W C. III and Coble, H. D. 1986. Crop rotation and herbicide effects on the population dynamics of two annual grasses. Weed Sci. 34:452–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Roberts, H. A. and Dawkins, P. A. 1967. Effect of cultivation on the numbers of viable weed seeds in soil. Weed Res. 7:290–301.Google Scholar
15. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:84–89.Google Scholar
16. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.Google Scholar
18. 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