scholarly journals Determining the critical period for weed control in high-yielding cotton using common sunflower as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growing Degree Days ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Planting Season

AbstractField studies were conducted over six seasons to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding cotton, using common sunflower as a mimic weed. Common sunflower was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 plants m−2. Common sunflower was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 growing degree days (GDD) after planting. Season-long interference resulted in no harvestable cotton at densities of five or more common sunflower plants m−2. High levels of intraspecific and interspecific competition occurred at the highest weed densities, with increases in weed biomass and reductions in crop yield not proportional to the changes in weed density. Using a 5% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC extended from 43 to 615 GDD, and 20 to 1,512 GDD for one and 50 common sunflower plants m−2, respectively. These results highlight the high level of weed control required in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of control.

Determining the critical period for grass control in high-yielding cotton using Japanese millet as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 292-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Cropping Season ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Grass Weed

AbstractField studies were conducted over five seasons from 2004 to 2015 to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding, irrigated cotton using a competitive mimic grass weed, Japanese millet. Japanese millet was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 10, 20, 50, 100, and 200 plants m−2. Japanese millet was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 degree days of crop growth (GDD). Data were combined over years. Japanese millet competed strongly with cotton, with season-long interference resulting in an 84% reduction in cotton yield with 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. The data were fit to extended Gompertz and logistic curves including weed density as a covariate, allowing a dynamic CPWC to be estimated for densities of 10 to 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. Using a 1% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC commenced at 65 GDD, corresponding to 0 to 7 d after crop emergence (DAE), and ended at 803 GDD, 76 to 98 DAE with 10 Japanese millet plants m−2, and 975 GDD, 90 to 115 DAE with 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. These results highlight the high level of weed control required throughout the cropping season in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of weed control.

Determining the critical period for broadleaf weed control in high-yielding cotton using mungbean as a mimic weed

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 689-698
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Critical Time ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cotton Field ◽  
Control Input ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractResearch using the critical period for weed control (CPWC) has shown that high-yielding cotton crops are very sensitive to competition from grasses and large broadleaf weeds, but the CPWC has not been defined for smaller broadleaf weeds in Australian cotton. Field studies were conducted over five seasons from 2003 to 2015 to determine the CPWC for smaller broadleaf weeds, using mungbean as a mimic weed. Mungbean was planted at densities of 1, 3, 6, 15, 30, and 60 plants m−2 with or after cotton emergence and added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 degree days of crop growth (GDD). Mungbean competed strongly with cotton, with season-long interference; 60 mungbean plants m−2 resulted in an 84% reduction in cotton yield. A dynamic CPWC function was developed for densities of 1 to 60 mungbean plants m−2 using extended Gompertz and exponential curves including weed density as a covariate. Using a 1% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC defined by these curves extended for the full growing season of the crop at all weed densities. The minimum yield loss from a single weed control input was 35% at the highest weed density of 60 mungbean plants m−2. The relationship for the critical time of weed removal was further improved by substituting weed biomass for weed density in the relationship.

Critical period for weed control in field pea

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mainpal Singh ◽  
Rakesh Kumar ◽  
Satish Kumar ◽  
Virender Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Crop Growth ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Weed Competition ◽  
Weed Density

Field studies were conducted during 2008-09 and 2009-10 at Hisar, India to assess the effect of weed competition on crop growth and yield of field pea. Weed density increased up to 60 days and then decreased at later stages of crop growth. Seed yield of field pea was decreased by 50% when weeds were allowed to compete for the entire season. The critical period for weed control was 21-63 days in year 1 and 20-70 days in year 2 to achieve 95% of weed-free yield. It is therefore concluded that, to minimize yield loss due to weed competition in field pea, weed control measures should be targeted to avoid weed competition between 20-70 days after sowing.

Influence of a Rye Cover Crop on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Cotton

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 346-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas E. Korres ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Presence And Absence ◽  
Weed Removal

Cover crops are becoming increasingly common in cotton as a result of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth; hence, a field experiment was conducted in 2009 and 2010 in Marianna, AR, with a rye cover crop used to determine its effects on the critical period for weed control in cotton. Throughout most of the growing season, weed biomass in the presence of a rye cover crop was lesser than that in the absence of a rye cover crop. In 2009, in weeks 2 through 7 after planting, weed biomass was reduced at least twofold in the presence of a rye cover compared with the absence of rye. In 2009, in both presence and absence of a rye cover crop, weed removal needed to begin before weed biomass was 150 g m−2, or approximately 4 wk after planting, to prevent yield loss > 5%. Weed density was less in 2010 than in 2009, so weed removal was not required until 7 wk after planting, at which point weed biomass values were 175 and 385 g m−2in the presence and absence of a cover crop, respectively.

The Critical Period of Bengal Dayflower (Commelina Bengalensis) Control in Peanut

Weed Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Webster ◽  
Wilson H. Faircloth ◽  
J. Timothy Flanders ◽  
Eric P. Prostko ◽  
Timothy L. Grey
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Plant Pathogens ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Peanut Crop ◽  
The Relationship

Bengal dayflower (also known as tropical spiderwort) is one of the most troublesome weeds in peanut in Georgia, United States. Field studies conducted in 2004 and 2005 evaluated the relationship between the duration of Bengal dayflower interference and peanut yield in an effort to optimize the timing of weed control. In 2004, the critical period of weed control (CPWC) necessary to avoid greater than 5% peanut yield loss was between 316 and 607 growing degree days (GDD), which corresponded to an interval between June 8 and July 2. In 2005, the CPWC ranged from 185 to 547 GDD, an interval between May 30 and July 3. Maximum yield loss in 2005 from season-long interference of Bengal dayflower was 51%. In 2004, production of peanut pods was eliminated by interference with Bengal dayflower for the initial 6 wk (495 GDD) of the growing season. Robust Bengal dayflower growth in 2004 shaded the peanut crop, likely intercepting fungicide applications and causing a reduction in peanut yield. Therefore, the competitive effects of Bengal dayflower are likely complicated with the activity of plant pathogens. In spite of higher Bengal dayflower population densities, greater Bengal dayflower growth, and greater peanut yield losses in 2004 than in 2005, the CPWC was a relatively similar 4-wk period that ended during the first week of July, for peanut that was planted in the first week of May.

Cotton Planting Date Affects The Critical Period of Benghal Dayflower (Commelina benghalensis) Control

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Webster ◽  
Timothy L. Grey ◽  
J. Timothy Flanders ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cotton Field ◽  
Commelina Benghalensis ◽  
Critical Range ◽  
Benghal Dayflower

Benghal dayflower (formerly known as tropical spiderwort) is one of the most troublesome weeds in Georgia cotton. Field studies were conducted from 2003 to 2005 to evaluate the relationship between the duration of Benghal dayflower interference and cotton yield to establish optimum weed-control timing. To determine the critical period of weed control (CPWC), Benghal dayflower interference with cotton was allowed or prohibited in 2-wk intervals between 0 to 12 wk after crop planting. Maximum yield loss from Benghal dayflower in May-planted cotton was 21 to 30% in 2004 and 2005, whereas cotton planting delayed until June resulted in maximum yield losses of 40 to 60%. June-planted cotton had a CPWC of 190 to 800 growing degree days (GDD) in 2004 (52-d interval beginning at 16 d after planting [DAP]) and 190 to 910 GDD in 2005 (59-d interval beginning at 18 DAP). In contrast, May-planted cotton in 2005 had a narrower CPWC interval of 396 to 587 GDD (18 d) that occurred 3 wk later in the growing season (initiated at 39 DAP). May-planted cotton in 2004 did not have a critical range of weed-free conditions. Instead, a single weed removal at 490 GDD (44 DAP) averted a yield loss greater than 5%. It is recommended that fields infested with Benghal dayflower be planted with cotton early in the growing season to minimize weed interference with the crop.

The Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn in Turkey

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan Isik ◽  
Husrev Mennan ◽  
Bekir Bukun ◽  
Ahmet Oz ◽  
Mathieu Ngouajio
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The Black Sea ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Black Sea Region ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Loss Level

Field studies were conducted in 2001 and 2002 in the Black Sea Region of northern Turkey to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in corn and the effects of weed interference on corn height. Treatments of increasing duration of weed interference and weed-free period were imposed at weekly intervals from 0 to 12 wk after crop emergence (WAE). The CPWC was determined with the use of 2.5, 5, and 10% acceptable yield loss levels by fitting logistic and Gompertz equations to relative yield data. With 5% yield loss level, the CPWC was 5 wk, starting at 0.2 WAE and ending at 5.2 WAE, which corresponded to the one- to five-leaf stage of corn. The CPWC increased to 8.9 wk, starting at 0 WAE and ending at 8.9 WAE, at the 2.5% yield loss level. At 10% yield loss level, the CPWC decreased to 1.7 wk, starting at 2.1 WAE and ending at 3.8 WAE.

Rate and Time of Bentazon/Atrazine Application for Broadleaf Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays)

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan S. Hamill ◽  
Jianhua Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Small Range ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Time Of Application ◽  
Intermediate Rate ◽  
Range Of Variation

The effects of herbicide–adjuvant combinations and times of application on weed density and corn yield were determined in a 3-yr field study. At a given rate and time of application of bentazon/atrazine, Assist and Merge were equally effective adjuvants. Assist would be the adjuvant of choice for bentazon/atrazine rather than Merge because of its currently lower cost. Weed density depended on the rate and time of application of bentazon/atrazine. In general, bentazon/atrazine applied at early stages (7 d after emergence) of the development of corn seedlings or at high or intermediate rate (1.6 or 0.8 kg ai/ha) maintained low weed densities, with a relatively small range of variation over years. Delay in time (14 or 21 d after emergence) or reduction in herbicide rate (0.4 kg ai/ha) increased the risk of high weed pressure, although it was not always associated with yield loss. The best time for the application of postemergence herbicide appears to be a few days prior to the onset of the critical period of weed control.

Evaluating shade cloth to simulate Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) competition in sweetpotato

Weed Science ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Levi D. Moore ◽  
Katherine M. Jennings ◽  
David W. Monks ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
Ramon G. Leon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ipomoea Batatas ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Total Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Light Interception ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Growing Degree Days ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Shade Cloth

Abstract Field studies were conducted in 2019 and 2020 to compare the effects of shade cloth light interception and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) competition on ‘Covington’ sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]. Treatments consisted of a seven by two factorial arrangement, in which the first factor included shade cloth with an average measured light interception of 41%, 59%, 76%, and 94% and A. palmeri thinned to 0.6 or 3.1 plants m−2 or a nontreated weed-free check; and the second factor included shade cloth or A. palmeri removal timing at 6 or 10 wk after planting (WAP). Amaranthus palmeri light interception peaked around 710 to 840 growing degree days (base 10 C) (6 to 7 WAP) with a maximum light interception of 67% and 84% for the 0.6 and 3.1 plants m−2 densities, respectively. Increasing shade cloth light interception by 1% linearly increased yield loss by 1% for No. 1, jumbo, and total yield. Yield loss increased by 36%, 23%, and 35% as shade cloth removal was delayed from 6 to 10 WAP for No. 1, jumbo, and total yield, respectively. F-tests comparing reduced versus full models of yield loss provided no evidence that the presence of yield loss from A. palmeri light interception caused yield loss different than that explained by the shade cloth at similar light-interception levels. Results indicate that shade cloth structures could be used to simulate Covington sweetpotato yield loss from A. palmeri competition, and light interception could be used as a predictor for expected yield loss from A. palmeri competition.

The Critical Period of Weed Control in White Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Weed Science ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian L. Woolley ◽  
Thomas E. Michaels ◽  
Michael R. Hall ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton
Keyword(s):  
Phaseolus Vulgaris ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Stages Of Growth ◽  
White Bean ◽  
Pod Number

Field studies were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to determine the critical period for weed control in white bean grown in Ontario. The treatments consisted of either allowing weeds to infest the crop for increasing durations after planting or maintaining plots weed free for increasing durations after planting. The beginning of the critical period was defined as the crop stage by which weed interference reduced yields by 3%. Similarly, the end of the critical period was defined as the crop stage to which the crop had to be weed free to prevent a 3% yield loss. The critical period of weed control occurred between the second-trifoliolate and first-flower stages of growth for all cultivars and years, with the exception of the cultivar ‘OAC Seaforth’ in 1986. The average number of pods per plant for both cultivars was reduced by increasing durations of weed interference after planting in both years. However, pod number of the cultivar OAC Seaforth was reduced at a greater rate in 1986 than ‘Ex Rico 23’. The beginning of the critical period corresponded with the beginning of a rapid increase in total weed biomass.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document