Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:27:59.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pale smartweed interference and achene production in cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shawn D. Askew  and
John W. Wilcut
Shawn D. Askew
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at two North Carolina locations to determine the effect of interference between pale smartweed and cotton on plant growth and productivity. Pale smartweed remained shorter than cotton until at least 70 d after cotton planting. However, pale smartweed grew over twice as tall as cotton and produced considerable dry biomass by cotton harvest. Pale smartweed biomass per plant was not affected by weed density up to 3.5 plants m−1 of row when grown with cotton. Cotton competition reduced pale smartweed dry biomass per plant at least 400%. The relationship between pale smartweed and cotton percent yield loss was described by the rectangular hyperbola model with the asymptote (coefficient a) constrained to 100% maximum yield loss. The estimated coefficient i (yield loss per unit density as density approaches zero) was 29 ± 4 and 23 ± 4 in 1998 and 2000, respectively. Pale smartweed achene production was also described by the hyperbolic function. Estimated achene production of smartweed at 1 plant m−1 cotton row was 63,000 and 25,000 achenes m−2 in 1998 and 2000, respectively.

Keywords

Pale smartweed, Polygonum lapathifolium var. lapathifolium L. POLPEcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Stoneville BXN 47’Competitioncrop heighteconomic thresholdsmodelsseed rainweed biomassweed densityweed height
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , June 2002 , pp. 357 - 363
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

Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001a. Interference and seed-rain dynamics of three Polygonum species in cotton. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:24.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001b. Tropic croton (Croton glandulosus) interference in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 49:184–189.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 1999. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed-rain dynamics in cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:163.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybean. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Chandler, J. M. 1988. Influence of cultivar height on competitiveness of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 36:616–620.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. 1987. Interference of hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 35:314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.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.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5:270–278.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1978. Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26:556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Consaul, L. L., Warwick, S. I., and McNeill, J. 1991. Allozyme variation in the Polygonum lapathifolium complex. Can. J. Bot. 69:2261–2270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management in Illinois. Weed Technol. 11:828–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 33–42 and 511.Google Scholar
Edmisten, K. L. 2000. The cotton plant. Pages 4–15 In Edmisten, K. L., ed. 2000 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Publ. AG-417.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, E. J. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1995. Inter- and intra-generic differences in growth, reproduction, and fitness of nine herbaceous annual species grown in elevated CO2 environments. Oecologia 104:454–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. 1965. Studies on weed species of the genus Polygonum L.: I. Physiological variation within P. persicaria L. Weed Res. 5:13–26.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 598–624.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Maxwell, B. D., Anderson, R. L., et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum-Aegilops cylindrica interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:529–537.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. S. and Dean, J. K. 1978. Polygonaceae (Buckwheat Family) of New York State. Albany, NY: University of the State of New York, Bull. No. 431. pp. 46–48.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1998. Pale smartweed (Polygonum lapathifolium L.) and other Polygonums. Weed Technol 12:560–562.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. pp. 662–663.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Neilson, J. E. 1980. Seed survival and periodicity of seedling emergence in some species of Atriplex, Chenopodium, Polygonum, and Rumex . Ann. Appl. Biol. 94:111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, M. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1999. Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 47:305–309.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985a. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum): II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.Google Scholar
Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985b. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum): I. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google 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
Smith, D. T., Baker, R. V., and Steele, G. L. 2000. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, and ginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 14:122–126.CrossRefGoogle 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
Staniforth, R. J. and Cavers, P. B. 1976. An experimental study of water dispersal in Polygonum spp. Can. J. Bot. 54:2587–2596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staniforth, R. J. and Cavers, P. B. 1979. Distribution and habitats of four annual smartweeds in Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 93:378–385.Google Scholar
Stevens, O. A. 1957. Weights of seeds and numbers per plant. Weeds 5:46–55.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity for offspring traits in Polygonum pensylvanicum . Ecology 77:1791–1807.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. C. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1993. The genetic component in plant size hierarchies, norms of reaction to density in a Polygonum species. Ecol. Monogr. 63:231–249.Google Scholar
Tremmel, D. C. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1993. How neighbor canopy architecture affects target plant performance. Ecology 74:2114–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J. and Thomas, S. C. 1992. Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology 73:648–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Vencill, W. K., and Richburg, J. S. III. 1997. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:221–226.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Coble, H. D., and Modena, S. A. 1991. HERB: decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413–417.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Durgan, B. R., Miller, D. W., and Wyse, D. L. 1997. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield reduction from common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) competition. Weed Sci. 45:127–131.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. 1999. Weed management in cotton. 1999 Cotton Information. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 73–111.Google Scholar