Weed Management in Single- vs. Twin-Row Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Abstract

Research was conducted to determine the effect of planting pattern, plant density, and levels of weed management intensity on intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (IPAR), weed control, and cotton lint yield in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Twin-row planting pattern canopy IPAR was 55% 7 wk after emergence (WAE) and 76% 9 WAE compared to 48% for single-row planting pattern 7 WAE and 59% 9 WAE. Regardless of cotton density, row spacing, or weed management intensity, control of browntop millet and Florida beggarweed was at least 88% 18 WAE. Benghal dayflower, sicklepod, and smallflower morningglory control was greater in twin-rows compared to single-rows at a cotton density of 7 plants m−2. Control of Benghal dayflower and sicklepod increased when cotton density increased at low weed management intensities; however, cotton density had no effect on weed control at higher levels of weed management input. At a cotton plant density of 7 plants m−2, twin-row cotton yielded 220 kg ha−1more than the single-row planting pattern. Data indicates twin-row cotton production is feasible and that control of various weeds was better in twin-row than single-row pattern at lower cotton density and weed management intensity.

Weed management using crop competition in the United States: A review

“…The study also reported a 67e85% decline in the total dry weight plant À1 of Euphorbia hyssopifolia L. under the UNR vs. the wide row cotton system (Molin et al, 2004). Stephenson and Brecke (2010) found that cotton planted in 19-cm twin rows, with each set of twin rows being 76-cm apart, had greater control of Commelina benghalensis L., Senna obtusifolia L. Irwin & Barneby, and Jacquemontia tamnifolia L. compared with the single-row (76 cm apart) planting pattern of cotton. In addition, the end-season total weed dry biomass was reduced by 35% in the twin-row (two rows 38 cm apart on 102-cm beds) compared to the single-row (on 102-cm beds) cotton planting system (Reddy and Boykin, 2010).…”

“…There is a limited research conducted on the effect of cotton seeding rates on cropeweed competition in the US. In a study conducted in Florida, US, control of C. benghalensis and S. obtusifolia increased with an increase in the cotton density from 7 to 26 plants m À2 under low levels of weed management (glyphosate plus Smetolachlor) (Stephenson and Brecke, 2010). However, the effect of cotton density on weed control was not evident at the medium [glyphosate þ S-metolachlor followed by (fb) glyphosate] and high (glyphosate þ S-metolachlor fb glyphosate fb MSMA þ prometryn) weed management inputs (Stephenson et al, 2011).…”

Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) through weed-crop competition: A review

“…Iaqta control was better in the twin-rows system compared to the single row system. This was due to the rapid canopy closure and better light interception under the twin-rows system than the single row system (Stephenson and Brecke, 2010). In all these studies, significant weed suppression was achieved due to early canopy closure and competition for resources and light.…”

“…Similarly, significant weed suppression was achieved in cotton planted at 25 cm and 75 cm row spacing compared to 102 cm rows (Gwathmey et al, 2008). In another study in Florida, two row spacing, 76 cm and twin row spacing (19 cm between rows and 76 cm between two sets of rows) both at a density of 7 plants m À2 were compared (Stephenson and Brecke, 2010). Better weed management and yield were achieved from the twin-rows system compared to the single row system.…”

Weed Management in Evenly-Spaced 38- vs. 76-cm Row Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

“…Least square means were calculated and mean separation (P # 0.05) was produced for herbicide treatment using PDMIX800 in SAS, which is a macro for converting means separation output to letter groupings (Saxton 1998). This statistical approach has been used successfully in previous research (Bond et al, 2009;Bond et al, 2008;Bond et al, 2007;Etheredge et al, 2009;Leon et al, 2008;Levy et al, 2006;Stephenson et al, 2010;Walker et al, 2008;Webster et al, 2007).…”