Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:55:45.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Matt W. Rowland ,
Don S. Murray  and
Laval M. Verhalen
Matt W. Rowland
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Four field experiments were conducted in Oklahoma to measure full-season Palmer amaranth interference on cotton lint yield and fiber properties. Density of the weed ranged from 0 to 12 plants 10 m−1 of row. Cotton lint yield vs. weed density fit a linear model for densities ⩽ 8 weeds row−1 at Perkins and Chickasha in 1996 and at Alms in 1997. At Perkins in 1997, all densities fit a linear model. For each increase of 1 weed row−1, lint yield reductions were 62 kg ha−1 (or 10.7%) and 58 kg ha−1 (or 11.5%) at Perkins and at Chickasha in 1996, respectively. At Perkins and Alms in 1997, for each 1 weed row−1, lint yield was reduced 71 kg ha−1 (or 5.9%) and 112 kg ha−1 (or 8.7%), respectively. Lint yield vs. end-of-season weed volume fit a linear model except at Alms in 1997. For each increase of 1 m3 of weed plot−1, cotton lint yield in 1996 was reduced by 1.6 and 1.5% at Perkins and Chickasha, respectively. In 1997 at Perkins and Altus (⩽ 6 weeds), each increase of 1 m3 of weed plot−1 reduced lint yield 1.6 and 2.3%, respectively. Lint yield vs. end-of-season weed biomass fit a linear model in all four experiments. Lint yield was reduced 5.2 to 9.3% for each increase of 1 kg of weed biomass plot−1. Fiber analyses revealed significant differences for micronaire (fiber fineness) among weed densities in two experiments, marginal significance in a third, and none in a fourth. An intermediate number of weeds often resulted in improved fiber micronaires in these environments. No other fiber properties were influenced by weed density.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster HS-26.’Competitionfiber propertieslint yieldweed biomassweed densityweed volume
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , June 1999 , pp. 305 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Texas A&M Research and Extension Center, 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106

References

Literature Cited

Albers, M. R. and Murray, D. S. 1997. Effect of transplant timing and cultural methods on establishing plants. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:151.Google Scholar
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
Byrd, J. D. Jr. 1996. Report of the 1995 Cotton Weed Loss Committee. Pages 1513–1516 in Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville, TN. January 9–12, 1996. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5:263–269.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—Southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:290–325.Google Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:587–591.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmer?) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1987. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and other plant residues in soil. Weed Sci. 35:339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1988. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on seedling growth. Weed Sci. 36:325–328.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Baumann, P. A., and Chandler, J. M. 1997. The effect of Palmer amaranth competiton on cotton growth and yield. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:149–150.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Smith, B. S., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:799–803.Google Scholar
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