|
|
|
|
|
| Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) density effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) |
| MA Xiao-yan, WU Han-wen, JIANG Wei-li, MA Ya-jie, MA Yan |
1、State Key Laboratory of Cotton Biology, Institute of Cotton Research, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Anyang 455000,P.R.China
2、Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga New South Wales 2650, Australia |
|
|
|
摘要 Goosegrass is one of the worst agricultural weeds on a worldwide basis. Understanding of its interference impact in crop field will provide useful information for weed control programs. Field experiments were conducted during 2010–2012 to determine the influence of goosegrass density on cotton growth at the weed densities of 0, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 plants m–1 of row. Seed cotton yield tended to decrease with the increase in weed density, and goosegrass at a density of 4 plants m–1 of row significantly reduced cotton yields by 20 to 27%. A density of 11.6–19.2 goosegrass plant m–1 of row would result in a 50% cotton yield loss from the maximum yield according to the hyperbolic decay regression model. Boll production was not affected in the early growing season. But boll numbers per plant were reduced about 25% at the density of 4 plants m–1 of row in the late growing season. Both cotton boll weight and seed numbers per boll were significantly reduced (8%) at 4 goosegrass plants m–1 of row. Cotton plant height, stem diameter and sympodial branch number were not affected as much as cotton yields by goosegrass competition. Seed index, lint percentage and lint fiber properties were unaffected by weed competition. Intraspecific competition resulted in density-dependent effects on weed biomass per plant, 142–387 g dry weight by harvest. Goosegrass biomass m–2 tended to increase with increasing weed density as indicated by a quadratic response. The adverse impact of goosegrass on cotton yield identified in this study has indicated the need of effective goosegrass management.
Abstract Goosegrass is one of the worst agricultural weeds on a worldwide basis. Understanding of its interference impact in crop field will provide useful information for weed control programs. Field experiments were conducted during 2010–2012 to determine the influence of goosegrass density on cotton growth at the weed densities of 0, 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 plants m–1 of row. Seed cotton yield tended to decrease with the increase in weed density, and goosegrass at a density of 4 plants m–1 of row significantly reduced cotton yields by 20 to 27%. A density of 11.6–19.2 goosegrass plant m–1 of row would result in a 50% cotton yield loss from the maximum yield according to the hyperbolic decay regression model. Boll production was not affected in the early growing season. But boll numbers per plant were reduced about 25% at the density of 4 plants m–1 of row in the late growing season. Both cotton boll weight and seed numbers per boll were significantly reduced (8%) at 4 goosegrass plants m–1 of row. Cotton plant height, stem diameter and sympodial branch number were not affected as much as cotton yields by goosegrass competition. Seed index, lint percentage and lint fiber properties were unaffected by weed competition. Intraspecific competition resulted in density-dependent effects on weed biomass per plant, 142–387 g dry weight by harvest. Goosegrass biomass m–2 tended to increase with increasing weed density as indicated by a quadratic response. The adverse impact of goosegrass on cotton yield identified in this study has indicated the need of effective goosegrass management.
|
|
Received: 15 October 2014
Accepted: 05 September 2015
|
| Fund: This research was funded by grants from the National Key Technology R&D Program of China (2012BAD19B05) and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Public Welfare Research Institutes, China (SJB1005). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
MA Yan, Tel: +86-372-2562294,E-mail: aymayan@126.com
E-mail: aymayan@126.com
|
| About author: MA Xiao-yan, Tel: +86-372-2562297, E-mail: maxy_caas@126.com; |
Cite this article:
MA Xiao-yan, WU Han-wen, JIANG Wei-li, MA Ya-jie, MA Yan.
2015.
Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) density effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(9): 1778-1785.
|
| Amini R, Alizadeh H, Yousefi A. 2014. Interference betweenred kidneybean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars and redrootpigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). European Journal ofAgronomy, 60, 13-21Askew S D, Wilcut J W. 2002a. Ladysthumb interference andseed production in cotton. Weed Science, 50, 326-332Askew S D, Wilcut J W. 2002b. Pale smartweed interferenceand achene production in cotton. Weed Science, 50,357-363Askew S D, Wilcut J W. 2002c. Pennsylvania smartweedinterference and achene production in cotton. WeedScience, 50, 350-356Ballaré C L, Casal J J. 2000. Light signals perceived by cropand weed plants. Field Crops Research, 67, 149-160Barnett K A, Steckel L E. 2013. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida)competition in cotton. Weed Science, 61, 543-548Bridges D C, Chandler J M. 1987. Influence of johnsongrass(Sorghum halepense) density and period of competition oncotton yield. Weed Science, 35, 63-67Buchanan G A, Burns E R. 1970. Influence of weed competitionon cotton. Weed Science, 18, 149-154Buchanan G A, Burns E R. 1971a. Weed competition in cotton.I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Science, 19,576-580Buchanan G A, Burns E R. 1971b. Weed competition in cotton.II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Science, 19,580-582Buchanan G A, Mclaughlin R D. 1975. Influence of nitrogen onweed competition in cotton. Weed Science, 23, 324-328Castner E P, Murray D S, Hackett N M, Verhalen L M. 1989.Interference of hogpotato (Hoffmanseggia glauca) withcotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science, 37, 688-694Chandler J M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf,prickly sida, and venice mallow in cotton. Weed Science,25, 151-158Chen J C, Huang H J, Wei S H, Zhang C X, Huang Z F. 2015.Characterization of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass(Eleusine indica) populations in China. Journal of IntegrativeAgriculture, 14, 919-925Chen Y, Han C. 2009. Study on paraquat resistance ingoosegrass (Eleusine indica). In: Proceedings of the 9thNational Weed Science Conference, Xining, China. WeedScience Society of China, China. pp. 112-113 (in Chinese)Chin H F. 1979. Weed seed - a potential source of danger.In: Kwee L T, ed., Proceedings of the Plant ProtectionSeminar. Malaysian Plant Protection Society, KualaLumpur, Malaysia. pp. 115-119Chuah T S, Low V L, Cha T S, Ismail B S. 2010. Initial reportof glufosinate and paraquat multiple resistances evolvedin a biotype of goosegrass (Eleusine indica [L.] Gaertn.) inMalaysia. Weed Biology and Management, 10, 229-233Chuah T S, Salmijah S, Teng Y T, Ismail B S. 2004. Changesin seed bank size and dormancy characteristics of theglyphosate-resistant biotype of goosegrass (Eleusine indica[L.] Gaertn.). Weed Biology and Management, 4, 114-121Crowley R H, Buchanan G A. 1978. Competition of fourmorningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton(Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science, 26, 484-488Du X M, Zhou Z L. 2005. Descriptors and Data Standard forCotton (Gossypium spp.). China Agricultural Press, China.pp. 25-26 (in Chinese)Ghanizadeh H, Lorzadeh S, Aryannia N. 2014. Effect of weedinterference on Zea mays: Growth analysis. Weed Biologyand Management, 14, 133-137 Goodman A. 1955. Correlation between cloud shade andshedding in cotton. Nature, 176, 39.Heap I. 2014. International survey of herbicide resistantweeds. [2014-3-10]. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspxHolm L G, Plucknett D L, Pancho J V, Herberger J P. 1977.The World’s Worst Weeds - Distribution and Biology. 1sted. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. pp. 52-53Ismail B S, Chuah T S, Salmijah S, Teng Y T. 2003. Effects ofshade and watering frequency on growth and developmentof glyphosate-resistant and susceptible biotypes ofgoosegrass (Eleusine indica [L.] Gaertn.). Plant ProtectionQuarterly, 18, 30-34Ismail B S, Chuah T S, Salmijah S, Teng Y T, SchumacherR W. 2002. Germination and seedling emergence ofthe glyphosate-resistant and susceptible biotype ofgoosegrass (Eleusine indica [L.] Gaertn.). Weed Biologyand Management, 2, 177-185Leach G E, Devine M D, Kirkwood R C, Marshall G. 1995.Target enzyme-based resistance to acetyl-coenzymeA carboxylase inhibitors in Eleusine indica. PesticideBiochemistry and Physiology, 51, 129-136Lee L J, Ngim J. 2000. A first report of glyphosate-resistantgoosegrass (Eleusine indica (L) Gaertn) in Malaysia. PestManagement Science, 56, 336-339Li J, Zong T, Liu X Y, Bai L Y. 2014. Resistance of Eleusineindica to haloxyfop-R-methyl in cotton fields in part of Hunanprovince. Cotton Sicence, 26, 279-282 (in Chinese)Ma X Y, Ma Y J, Peng J, Xi J P, Ma Y, Li X F. 2010. Currentsituation and developing tendency of the weed researchesin cotton field of China. Cotton Science, 22, 372-380 (inChinese)Mercer K L, Murray D S, Verhalen L M. 1987. Interferenceof unicorn-plant (Proboscidea louisianica) with cotton(Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science, 35, 807-812Morgan G M, Baumann P A, Chandler J M. 2001. Competitiveimpact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) oncotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. WeedTechnology, 15, 408-412Mudge L C, Gossett B J, Murphy T R. 1984. Resistance ofgoosegrass (Eleusine indica) to dinitroaniline herbicides.Weed Science, 32, 591-594Poonguzhalan P, Ayyadurai R, Gokila J. 2013. Effect ofcrop-weed competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.)-Review. Agricultural Reviews, 34, 157-161Rogers J B, Murray D S, Verhalen L M, Claypool P L. 1996.Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interferencewith cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technology, 10,107-114Rowland M W, Murray D S, Verhalen L M. 1999. Full seasonPalmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference withcotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Science, 47, 305-309Rushing D W, Murray D S, Verhalen L M. 1985a. Weedinterference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I. Buffalobur(Solanum rostratum). Weed Science, 33, 810-814Rushing D W, Murray D S, Verhalen L M. 1985b. Weedinterference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumblepigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Science, 33, 815-818Saberali S F, Modarres-Sanavy S A M, Bannayan M,Baghestani M A, Mashhadi H R, Hoogenboom G. 2012.Dry bean competitiveness with redroot pigweed as affectedby growth habit and nitrogen rate. Field Crops Research,135, 38-45Smith D T, Baker R V, Steele G L. 2000. Palmer amaranth(Amaranthus palmeri) impacts on yield, harvesting, andginning in dryland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). WeedTechnology, 14, 122-126Snipes C E, Buchanan G A, Street J E, Mcguire J A.1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthiumpensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). WeedScience, 30, 553-556Tingle C H, Steele G L. 2003. Competition and control ofsmellmelon (Cucumis melo var. dudaim Naud.) in cotton.Weed Science, 51, 586-591Uludag A, Gozcy D, Rusen M, Guvercin R S, Demir A. 2007.The effect of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.)densities on cotton yield. Pakistan Journal of BiologicalSciences, 10, 523-525Wandscheer A C D, Rizzardi M A, Reichert M. 2013.Competitive ability of corn in coexistence with goosegrass.Planta Daninha, 31, 281-289Wood M L, Murray D S, Banks J C, Verhalen L M, Westerman RB, Anderson K B. 2002. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)density effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) harvest andeconomic value. Weed Technology, 16, 495-501Yang C H, Tian X S, Feng L, Yue M F. 2012. Resistance ofEleusine indica Gaertn to glyphosate. Scientia AgriculturaSinica, 45, 2093-2098 (in Chinese)Zhang Z P. 2003. Development of chemical weed control andintegrated weed management in China. Weed Biology andManagement, 3, 197–203. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
