Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:56:45.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Full-Season Interference of Silverleaf Nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. D. Green ,
Don S. Murray  and
Laval M. Verhalen
J. D. Green
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Laval M. Verhalen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Full-season interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium Cav. # SOLEL) with dryland and irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 145′) was evaluated in five field experiments during 1984 and 1985, Weed densities ranged from 0 to 32 plants/10 m of crop row. Dry weight of silverleaf nightshade increased from 0.08 to 0.39 kg/plot for each additional weed/10 m of row. Intraspecific competition among silverleaf nightshade plants was not evident. However, cotton height was reduced at weed densities of 4 plants/10 m of row or more. The densities at which initial lint yield reductions occurred ranged from 4 to 32 weed plants/10 m of row. Irrigated cotton more effectively competed with the weed than did dryland cotton, suggesting that soil water was a primary competition factor between the two species. Boll size was reduced at densities of 2 weeds/10 m of row and above. Silverleaf nightshade reduced mechanical harvest efficiency only at densities of 16 and 32 plants/10 m of row. Fiber properties were not affected. Linear regression predicted that lint yield would be reduced 1.54% for each silverleaf nightshade plant/10 m of cotton row. The distance silverleaf nightshade was established from the crop row did not affect the weed's interference with cotton within a range of 0 to 30 cm.

Keywords

Competitiondry weed weightcrop heightlint yieldboll sizeharvest efficiencyfiber qualitySOLEL
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 1987 , pp. 813 - 818
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Abernathy, J. R. and Keeling, J. W. 1979. Silverleaf nightshade control in cotton with glyphosate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:380.Google Scholar
2. Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Growth and development of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci. 30:238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Boyd, J. W., Murray, D. S., and Tyrl, R. J. 1984. Silverleaf nightshade, Solanum elaeagnifolium, origin, distribution, and relation to man. Econ. Bot. 38:210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Brown, S. M., Whitwell, T., and Street, J. E. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:503–506.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and Crowley, R. H. 1980. Influence of time of planting and distance from the cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) row of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa), prickly sida (Sida spinosa), and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) on competitiveness with cotton. Weed Sci. 28:568–572.Google Scholar
7. 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
8. Cuthbertson, E. G., Leys, A. R., and McMaster, G. 1976. Silverleaf nightshade — a potential threat to agriculture. Agric. Gaz. New South Wales 87:11–13.Google Scholar
9. Elmore, C. D. 1986. Weed survey — southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
10. Fernandez, O. A. and Brevedan, R. E. 1972. Regeneracion de Solanum eleagnifolium Cav. a partir de fragmentos de sus raices. Darwiniana 17:433–442.Google Scholar
11. Gunn, C. R. and Gaffney, F. B. 1974. Seed characteristics of 42 economically important species of Solanaceae in the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1471. 33 pp.Google Scholar
12. Hackett, N. M. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum eleagnifolium) with Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:66.Google Scholar
13. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1975. Influence of yellow nutsedge competition on furrow-irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 23:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Patterson, M. G., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and Crowley, R. H. 1980. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) competition with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:327–329.Google Scholar
15. Robinson, E. L. 1976. Effect of weed species and placement on seed cotton yields. Weed Sci. 24:353–355.Google Scholar
16. Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.Google Scholar
18. Smith, D. T., Wiese, A. F., and Cooley, A. W. 1973. Crop losses from several annual and perennial weeds. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. Pages 53–54.Google Scholar
19. Snipes, C. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 30: 553–556.Google Scholar
20. Street, J. E., Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McGuire, J. A. 1981. Influence of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) densities on competitiveness of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 29:253–256.Google Scholar
21. Whitwell, T. and Everest, J. 1984. Report of 1983 Cotton Weed Loss Committee. Pages 257–261 in Brown, J. M., ed. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., Nat. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.Google Scholar