Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:58:13.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Establishment Techniques for Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

M. Reneé Albers-Nelson ,
Don S. Murray ,
Laval M. Verhalen  and
Carla L. Goad
M. Reneé Albers-Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray*
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
Carla L. Goad
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dsm@mail.pss.okstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted in the field using common cocklebur as a test species to identify weed growth differences due to propagation method and weed age when transplanted (with no crop and with soybean). Two experiments involved weed establishment in noncrop areas using four propagation methods (direct seeded–transplanted, peat tablets, peat pots, and plastic inserts) in a factorial arrangement with three transplant timings (at the cotyledon stage, at two true leaves, and at four true leaves). A direct-seeded method was also included as a check. Propagation methods and transplant timings were contrasted to the direct-seeded method because it was the “most natural” method of those tested. Based on results from the first year, the peat tablet method at the three transplant timings plus the direct-seeded method were used to establish the weed in a field experiment with soybean. In 1996 at 4 wk after emergence (WAE), 8 WAE, and senescence, weeds planted in peat tablets and transplanted at the cotyledon stage were most similar to the direct-seeded method. Peat pots and plastic inserts displayed an intermediate number of differences, whereas direct-seeded–transplanted weeds exhibited the most differences of any propagation method. Transplanting at the two-leaf stage showed more differences, with the four-leaf stage showing even more. In 1997 at 4 WAE, few propagation methods or transplant timings were different from the direct-seeded method. Results from harvests at 8 WAE and at senescence were comparable to those in the previous year. Differences between years at 4 WAE were attributed to greater heat stress and less moisture early in 1996. When common cocklebur was grown in soybean, no differences were detected at 4 WAE between peat tablets transplanted at the cotyledon stage vs. direct-seeded weeds and only one difference when transplanted at the two- and four-leaf stages. At 8 WAE, the early transplant was again the most comparable treatment to direct-seeded weeds, with many differences at the later transplant timings. At senescence, weed differences were no longer apparent. Patterns established for peat tablets with the weed growing alone largely held true when it was grown with soybean.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Manokin’Propagation methodstransplant timingsdirect seededpeat tabletpeat potplastic insertweed ecologycompetitioninterferenceXANSTPOST, postemergenceWAE, weeks after emergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 463 - 470
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

Bozsa, R. C. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Competitive mechanisms of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and soybean (Glycine max) during seedling growth. Weed Sci. 38: 344–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, D. C., ed. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States—1992. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p. 3.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M., Whitwell, T., and Street, J. E. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33: 503–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, K. J. 1982. Comparison of the growth and development of young asparagus plants established from seedling transplants and by direct seeding. N. Z. J. Exp. Agric. 10: 405–408.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holshouser, D. L. and Chandler, J. M. 1996. Predicting flowering of rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) populations using a temperature-dependent model. Weed Sci. 44: 266–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempenaar, C. and Schnieders, B. J. 1995. A method to obtain fast and uniform emergence of weeds for field experiments. Weed Res. 35: 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leskovar, D. I. and Cantliffe, D. J. 1993. Comparison of plant establishment method, transplant, or direct seeding on growth and yield of bell pepper. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 118: 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liptay, A., Bolton, E. F., and Dirks, V. A. 1982. A comparison of field-seeded and transplanted tomatoes grown on a clay soil. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 483–487.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Salter, P. J., Akehurst, J. M., and Morris, G.E.L. 1986. Interactive effects of agronomic variables on marketable yield of leeks. J. Agric. Sci., Cambridge 106: 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Walker, R. H. 1987. Interference periods of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 35: 529–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supak, J. R. 1984. Understanding and using heat units. Proc. West. Cotton Prod. Conf. pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Thullen, R. J. and Keeley, P. E. 1987. Influence of date of planting on the growth of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 35: 173–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. 197 p.Google Scholar