Skip to main content Accessibility help

Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) interference in wide row and ultra narrow row cotton

  • William T. Molin, Debbie Boykin (a1), Josie A. Hugie (a2), H. Harish Ratnayaka (a3) and Tracy M. Sterling (a4)...


A field experiment was conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the effect of spurred anoda interference on yield loss of two cotton cultivars, ‘Delta Pine 5415’ and ‘Pima S-6’, grown under wide (1 m) (WR) and ultra narrow (0.25 m) row (UNR) spacings. The relationship between spurred anoda density and dry weight per plot was linear each year. At a spurred anoda density of 8 m−2, spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m−2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively. However, spurred anoda did not interfere with seed cotton yield in 2001, which was probably attributable to the low branch development in that year. Yield losses exceeded 55% at a spurred anoda density of 8 m−2 compared with controls in both WR and UNR. The effect of spurred anoda density on boll numbers was nearly identical in 2000 and 2002, regardless of cotton cultivar and row spacing. Boll weights decreased in response to spurred anoda interference. Spurred anoda interference resulted in a decrease in cotton branch dry weight in WR but not in UNR. The yield decrease as a result of spurred anoda interference in WR was due to reduction in boll retention or fruiting sites (predicated on a decrease in branch weight). However, in UNR, the yield decrease was due to plant mortality; the plant density of both cotton cultivars decreased by one plant for each additional spurred anoda, but the yield per plant for surviving plants remained constant. Neither WR nor UNR cotton had significant advantage in response to spurred anoda interference. The decreased boll weight observed in UNR, and the failure to increase boll numbers m−2 to compensate for decreased boll weight in UNR compared with WR, may limit its appeal to cotton producers.


Corresponding author

Corresponding author. Southern Weed Science Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Stoneville, MS 38776;


Hide All
Allen, R. D. 1995. Dissection of oxidative stress tolerance using transgenic plants. Plant Physiol 107:10491054.
Askew, S. D. and Wilcutt, J. W. 2002. Ladysthumb interference and seed production in cotton. Weed Sci 50:326332.
Atwell, S. D. 1996. Influence of ultra narrow row on cotton growth and development. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 2:11871188.
Atwell, S. D., Perkins, R., Guice, B., Stewart, W., Harden, J., and Odeneal, T. 1996. Essential steps to successful ultra narrow row on cotton production. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 2:12101211.
Benvenuti, , Macchia, M., and Stefani, A. 1994. Effects of shade on reproduction and some morphological characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, Datura stramonium L. and Sorghum halepense L. Pers. S. Weed Res 34:283288.
Boykin, D. L., Carle, R. R., Ranney, C. D., and Shanklin, R. 1995. Weather Date Summary for 1964–1993 Stoneville Mississippi.
Brandon, H., Laws, F., and Muzzi, D. eds. 2004. Delta Agricultural Digest. Clarksdale, MS: Farm. P. 18.
Chandler, J. M. 1977. Interference of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci 25:151158.
Chandler, J. M. and Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1983. Yields of three cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars as influenced by spurred anoda (Anoda cristata). Weed Sci 31:303307.
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239252.
Dowler, C. C. 1992. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 45:392407.
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:299313.
Flint, E. P., Patterson, D. T., and Beyers, J. L. 1983. Interference and temperature effects on growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 31:892898.
Guinn, G. 1974. Abscission of cotton floral buds and bolls as influenced by factors affecting photosynthesis and respiration. Crop Sci 14:291293.
Guinn, G., Mauney, J. R., and Fry, K. E. 1981. Irrigation scheduling and plant population effects on growth, bloom rates, boll abscission, and yield of cotton. Agron. J 73:529534.
Gwathmey, C. O. 1996. Ultra narrow cotton research in Tennessee. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:68.
Gwathmey, C. O. 1998. Reaching the objectives of the ultra narrow row cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:9192.
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic. 892 p.
Inzé, D. and Van Montagu, M. 1995. Oxidative stress in plants. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol 6:153158.
Jordan, W. R. 1970. Growth of cotton seedlings in relation to maximum daily plant water potential. Agron. J 62:699701.
Jost, P. H. and Cothren, J. T. 2000. Growth and yield comparisons of cotton planted in conventional and ultra-narrow row spacings. Crop Sci 40:430435.
Jost, P. H. and Cothren, J. T. 2001. Phenotypic alterations and crop maturity differences in ultra-narrow and conventionally spaced cotton. Crop Sci 41:11501159.
Kerby, T. 1998. UNR cotton production system trial in the mid south. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:8789.
Kerby, T., Cassman, K. G., and Keeley, M. 1990. Genotypes and plant densities for narrow row cotton systems, 1: height, nodes, earliness, and location of yield. Crop Sci 30:644649.
Mauney, J. R. 1979. Production of fruiting points. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 1:256260.
Molin, W. T., Hugie, J. A., and Hirase, K. 2004. Prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.) and spurge (Euphorbia hyssopifolia L.) response to wide row and ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) management systems. Weed Biol. Manag 4:222229.
Molin, W. T. and Khán, R. A. 1996. Differential tolerance of cotton (Gossypium sp.) cultivars to the herbicide prometryn. Pest. Biochem. Physiol 56:111.
Munro, J. M. 1987. Cotton. New York: J. Wiley. 78 p.
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1979. Effect of chilling on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and spurred anoda (Anoda cristata). Weed Sci 27:473479.
Patterson, D. T., Highsmith, M. T., and Flint, E. P. 1988. Effects of temperature and CO2 concentration on the growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 36:751757.
Ratnayaka, H. H., Molin, W. T., and Sterling, T. M. 2003. Physiological and antioxidant responses of cotton and spurred anoda under interference and mild drought. J. Exp. Bot 54:22932305.
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2005. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Shaaltiel, Y., Glazer, A., Bocion, P. F., and Gressel, J. 1988. Cross tolerance to herbicidal and environmental oxidants of plant biotypes tolerant to paraquat, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 31:1323.
Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed interference with snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 31:8185.
Unruh, B. L., Norton, E. R., and Silvertooth, J. C. 1994. Boll Sampling to Predict Lint Yield in Upland and Pima Cotton. Cotton, A University of Arizona Report. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Series P-96:4448.
Van Gessel, M. J., Schroeder, J., and Westra, P. 1998. Comparative growth and development of four spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) accessions. Weed Sci 46:9198.
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:244259.
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:169174.



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed