Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:26:17.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Growth, Seed Production, and Interference in Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel  and
C. Owen Gwathmey
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Blvd, Jackson, TN 38301
C. Owen Gwathmey
Affiliation:
West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Blvd, Jackson, TN 38301
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lsteckel@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to examine both density and duration of glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed interference in cotton. Two studies, one examining the effect of horseweed density and a second the duration of horseweed interference, were conducted on a site with a natural population of horseweed that were treated with glyphosate at 0.84 kg ae ha−1 prior to planting and at the 2nd and 4th cotton node growth stages. GR horseweed density effect on cotton height, maturity, and lint yield was determined at horseweed densities of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 plants m−2. Duration of horseweed interference was evaluated when 20 horseweed m−2 were allowed to interfere with cotton from emergence to 2nd node, 6th node, 10th node, 12th node, and 1st bloom stage of cotton. The maximum cotton lint yield loss (46%) occurred when horseweed was allowed to compete with cotton from emergence to maturity at the two highest densities (20 and 25 horseweed m−2). When the data were fit to the Cousens model the estimated a (maximum yield loss) and i (yield loss per unit density as density approaches zero) were 53 ± 7.3 and 2.8 ± 0.6 SE, respectively. In both years of the study, horseweed interference from emergence to the 2nd cotton node did not reduce cotton lint yields. In 2006, cotton lint yield loss was 28% compared to 39% in 2005 when horseweed interfered with cotton from emergence until the 6th cotton node. Cotton lint yield loss was 37 and 44% when horseweed competed to the 8th cotton node in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Maximum horseweed seed production was 134,000 to 148,000 seeds m−2.

Keywords

Glyphosatehorseweed, Conyza canadensis L. Cronq. ERICAcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.Glyphosate-resistantcompetitioncritical weed-free period
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 346 - 350
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

Anonymous 2005. Cotton Varieties Planted 2005 Crop. Memphis, TN: United States Department of Agriculture Cotton-Program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/cnarchive/20052D06/mp5Fcn8332D2Dannual20cotton20varieties20planted/050831mp5Fcn833.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007. Tennessee Agricultural Statistics. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Tennessee/index.asp. Accessed: July 31, 2007.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Tropic croton (Croton glandulosus) interference in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 49:184–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Ladysthumb interference and seed production in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:326–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M. and Whitwell, T. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza canadensis. Weed Technol. 2:269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–647.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. 1987. Interference of hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 35:314–318.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2005. Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 19:422–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Wilcut, J. W., and Porterfield, D. 2006. Weed management with S-metolachlor and glyphosate mixtures in glyphosate-resistant strip- and conventional-tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L). Weed Technol. 20:232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffman, C. B. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:256–260.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
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants. Boston PWS Publishers. 734.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2006. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: April 1, 2006.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Walker, R. H., and Whitwell, T. 1985. Coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis) competition with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 34:52–56.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Vanderlip, R. L., and Horak, M. J. 2001. Relative time of redroot pigweed emergence affects dry matter partitioning. Weed Sci. 49:617–621.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant (horseweed) Conyza canadensis in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, C. L., Steckel, L. E., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2006. Biotic and abiotic factors influence horseweed emergence. Weed Sci. 54:1101–1105.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Miller, K. V. 1999. Forest Plants of the Southeast and their Wildlife Uses. Auburn, Alabama Craftmaster. 454.Google Scholar
Molin, W. T., Boykin, D., Hugie, J. A., Ratnayaka, H. H., and Sterling, J. M. 2006. Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) interference in wide row and ultra narrow row cotton. Weed Sci. 54:651–657.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murrary, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985a. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murrary, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985b. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2000. SAS User's Guide Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. and Struik, G. 1964. A possible ecological relation between soil disturbance, light-flash, and seed germination. Ecology. 45:884–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Brownie, C. 2000. Datura stramonium interference and seed rain in Gossypium hirsutum. Weed Sci. 48:613–617.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
Steckel, L. E. 2005. Horseweed. University of Tennessee FACT sheet. W106. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publications/wfiles/W106.pdf. Accessed: July 31, 2007.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Craig, C. C., and Hayes, R. M. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza Canadensis) control with glufosinate prior to planting no-till cotton. Weed Technol. 20:1047–1051.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Mueller, T. C., Thompson, M. A., Rhodes, N., Hayes, R. M., Brown, B., and Sims, B. D. 2005. Weed control manual for Tennessee field crops, forage crops, farm ponds, and harvest aids. PB 1580. P. 6.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004a. Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18:947–952.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E. and Sprague, C. L. 2004b. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 52:359–364.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. M. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar