Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:15:07.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Hogpotato (Hoffmanseggia glauca) with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Eric P. Castner ,
Don S. Murray ,
Neil M. Hackett ,
Laval M. Verhalen ,
David L. Weeks  and
John F. Stone
Eric P. Castner
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Neil M. Hackett
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Laval M. Verhalen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
David L. Weeks
Affiliation:
Dep. Statistics, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
John F. Stone
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of hogpotato interference on cotton and of the crop on the weed were measured under field conditions in four environments. Full-season interference from 105 ± 21 hogpotato plants/m2 reduced cotton plant height by 14 to 44%. Conversely, weed dry weight was reduced 54% through full-season interference from cotton. Lint yield reductions in cotton ranged from 31 to 98% following full-season weed interference. Interference during the first 7 weeks of crop growth reduced lint yield by approximately 40%; however, interference after 7 weeks of weed-free maintenance did not affect lint yield. Interference reduced boll size in 3 of 4 yr, lint percent in 2 of 4, and boll number in the only year it was measured. Cotton fiber length, uniformity index, and micronaire were reduced by full-season interference in 1 of 2 yr; however, fiber strength was not affected in either year. Significant use of soil water by hogpotato occurred at 120 cm and deeper in the soil while cotton used water primarily in the upper 75 cm.

Keywords

Hogpotato, Hoffmanseggia glauca (Ortega) Eifert ♯3 HOFDEcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Paymaster 404’ and ‘Paymaster 145′Competitioncrop heightlint yieldyield componentsfiber qualitysoil moisturevolumetric soil waterHoffmanseggia densifloraHOFDE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , September 1989 , pp. 688 - 694
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Ball, W. S. and Robbins, W. W. 1935. Pignut. Calif. Dep. Agric. Monthly Bull. 24:260.Google Scholar
2. Banks, P. A., Tripp, T. N., Wells, J. W., and Hammel, J. E. 1986. Effects of tillage on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference with soybeans (Glycine max) and soil water use. Weed Sci. 34:143–149.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.Google Scholar
8. 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.Google Scholar
9. Buchanan, G. A. and McLaughlin, R. D. 1975. Influence of nitrogen on weed competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 23:324–328.Google Scholar
10. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:206–212.Google Scholar
11. Gould, F. W. 1969. Texas plants—A checklist and ecological summary. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Publ. MP-585. (Rev.) 121 pp.Google Scholar
12. Green, J. D., Murray, D. S., and Stone, J. F. 1988. Soil water relations of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 36:740–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Green, J. D., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1987. Full-season interference of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 35:813–818.Google Scholar
14. Greenhagen, B. E., Verhalen, L. M., Boman, R. K., Hooper, D. W., Thacker, R. W., Williams, O. H., and Baker, J. E. 1988. Cotton variety tests, Oklahoma–1987. Okla. Coop. Ext. Serv. Current Rep. CR-2094. 11 pp.Google Scholar
15. Hackett, N. M. and Murray, D. S. 1985. Biological studies with hogpotato. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:6.Google Scholar
16. Hackett, N. M. and Murray, D. S. 1985. Biology and development of hogpotato (Hoffmanseggia densiflora). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:360.Google Scholar
17. Hackett, N. M. and Murray, D. S. 1987. Germination and seedling development of hogpotato (Hoffmanseggia densiflora). Weed Sci. 35:360–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1975. Influence of yellow nutsedge competition on furrow-irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 23:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds 13:331–334.Google Scholar
20. McMichael, B. L. 1986. Growth of Roots. Pages 29–38 in Mauney, J. R. and Stewart, J. M., eds. Cotton Physiology. The Cotton Foundation, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
21. Pavlychenko, T. K. and Harrington, J. B. 1935. Root development of weeds and crops in competition under dry farming. Sci. Agric. 16:151–160.Google Scholar
22. Robbins, W. W., Bellue, M. K., and Ball, W. S. 1951. Weeds in California. Calif. Dep. Agric., Sacramento, CA. Pages 258–260.Google Scholar
23. 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
24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Wiese, A. F. 1982. Control of hogpotato, a perennial weed in Texas. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. PR-3965. 4 pp.Google Scholar