Integrated Weed Management of Cotton Planting in Conventional and Ultra-Narrow Row Space

Subject Areas : Journal of Crop Ecophysiology

Ali Reza Ghavi ¹ ( Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran )
Mohammad Armin ² ( Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran )

Received: 2019-11-21 Accepted : 2020-05-02 Published : 2021-01-20

Keywords: competition, reduced herbicide dose, Cultivation system, Ultra-narrow row,

Abstract :

To determine the most appropriate method of weed management in conventional row and ultra narrow row spacings of cotton, a factorial experiment was based on a randomized complete block design with three replications was conducted in Sabzevar in 2015-2016. Factors under study were plant spacings in two levels, conventional (70 cm row spacing) and ultra-narrow row (20 cm row spacing) and weed management in six levels: without controlling of weeds (control), application of herbicide at recommended dose of Ethalfluralin (Treflan 48% EC) at 1160 g/ai ha), application of herbicide at 50% recommended dose + hand weeding at 45 days after emergence (DAE), application of herbicide at 50% recommended dose + two times hand weeding at 30 and 60 DAE, three times hand weeding at 30, 45 and 60 DAE, and full weed free condition. The results showed that traits like weed density, by 33.71 percent, lateral branches by 14.77 percent, number of bolls per plant by 16.88 percent, and boll weight by 12.30 percent were lower in narrow row spacing, while seed cotton yield by 39.85 percent and fiber yield by 23.71 percent higher, as compared to, conventional row spacing. In the conventional cultivation system, if 50% of the herbicide dose is reduced, it needs two hands weeding at 30 and 60 DAE; while in ultra-narrow row spacing condition, with a 50% reduction in the recommended herbicide dose, one hand weeding at 45 DAE is needed to achieve suitable seed cotton yield. As a whole, the results showed that, under ultra-narrow row spacing, with a 50% reduction in herbicide dose and reduced weed control times (only one hand weeding at 45 DAE) it can be obtained seed cotton yield similar to other control treatments.

References:

· Akram Ghaderi, F., A. Ghajari, M. Younes Abadi, D. Ghafari, and M. Alazamani. 2004. Determination of the critical period of weed control in Cotton. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 37 (1):167-175. (In Persian).
· Andrew, I., J. Storkey, and D. Sparkes, 2015. Areview of the potential for competitive cereal cultivars as a tool in integrated weed management. Weed Research. 55 (3): 239-248.
· Ardestani, M.M., F. Ghaderi-Far, E. Zeinali, M. Ghorbani, and M. Gorzin. 2018. The effect of row spacing on plant architecture, yield and seed quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 16 (2):435-446. (In Persian).
· Armin, M., M.E. Kashki, and M. Heidari. 2014. The effect of number of weedings and the type of herbicides on yield and yield components of cotton. Iranian Journal of Weed Ecology. 2(1): 45-54. (In Persian).
· Ayyadurai, P., R. Poonguzhalan, and J. Gokila. 2013. Effect of crop-weed competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.)-a review. Agricultural Reviwe. 34 (2):157-161.
· Barati Mahmoodi, H., M. Jami Alahmadi, M.H. Rashed Mohassel, S.N. Mahmoodi, and N. Shikhzadeh Mohammadabadi. 2011. The effect of integrated weed management (chemical and mechanical) on density and dry weight of weed and introduction of new herbicide (Envoke) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) field in Birjand region. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 9(2): 176-181. (In Persian).
· Boquet, D. 2005. Cotton in ultra-narrow row spacing: Plant density and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Agronmy Journal. 97: 279-287.
· Brodrick, R., M. Bange, S. Milroy, and G. Hammer. 2012. Physiological determinants of high yielding ultra-narrow row cotton: Biomass accumulation and partitioning. Field Crops Research. 134:122-129.
· Brodrick, R., M.P. Bange, S.P. Milroy, and G. Hammer. 2010. Yield and maturity of ultra-narrow row cotton in high input production systems. Agronmy Journal. 102 (3): 843-848.
· Byrd, J.D., and H.D. Coble. 1991. Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technology. 5 (2):263-269.
· Fahad, S., S. Hussain, B.S. Chauhan, S. Saud, C. Wu, S. Hassan, M. Tanveer, A. Jan, and J. Huang. 2015. Weed growth and crop yield loss in wheat as influenced by row spacing and weed emergence times. Crop Protection. 71: 101-108.
· Ghaderifar, F., M.S. Aali, O. Cancholi, M.Yousefi-Daz, and A. Miri. 2012. Yield and fiber quality comparison of cotton planted in ultra-narrow row and conventional row. Electronic Journal of Crop Production. 5(2): 75-91. (In Persian).
· Ghajary, A., A. Miri, M. Zangi, and S. Soltani. 2012. Determination of the best suitable planting pattern and plant density of early maturing cotton cultivars following canola harvesting. Journal of Crop Prodction. 4: 103-121. (In Persian).
· Ghorbanpour, E., F.Ghaderifar, and J. Gherekhloo. 2014. Effect of row spacing on competition of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Journal of Crop Production and Processing. 4(12): 285-294. (In Persian).
· Jost, P.H., and J.T. Cothren. 2001. Phenotypic alterations and crop maturity differences in ultra-narrow row and conventionally spacedcotton. Crop Science. 41 (4): 1150-1159.
· Manalil, S., O. Coast, J. Werth, and B.S. Chauhan. 2017. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) through weed-crop competition: A review. Crop Protection.53-59.
· Mashingaidze, A.B., W. van Der Werf, L.A.P. Lotz, J. Chipomho, and M.J. Kropff. 2009. Narrow rows reduce biomass and seed production of weeds and increase maize yield. Annals of Applied Biology. 155(2): 207-218.
· Mehrabadi, H.R. 2018. Investigation of agronomic and morphologic responses ofdifferent cotton types in ultra narrow row system. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 16(3): 615-628. (In Persian).
· Mohammadi, S., and M.A. Baghestani. 2014. Integrated weed management effects on the growth characteristics and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum.). Iranian Journal of Cotton Researches. 1(2): 93-104. (In Persian).
· Nichols, S., C. Snipes, and M. Jones, 2004. Cotton growth, lint yield, and fiber quality as affected by row spacing and cultivar. Journal Cotton Science. 8: 1-12.
· Porrezaii, M., A. Siyadat, and M. Tohidi. 2011. Effects of planting pattern on yield and components of two cultivars of sunflower oil in Dezful. Journal of Plant Protection Science. 2(6): 83-95. (In Persian).
· Raefizadeh, A., M. Armin, and M. Jamimoeini. 2018. The effect of weed interference duration morphological traits and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in conventional and ultra narrow row spacing condition. Journal of Crop Production Research. 10(1): 33-50. (In Persian).
· Raimondi, M.A., R.S.D. Oliveira Junior, J. Constantin, L.H.M. Franchini, E. Blainski, and R.T. Raimondi. 2017. Weed interference in cotton plants grown with reduced spacing in the second harvest season. Revista Caatinga. 30(1): 1-12.
· Reddy, K.N., I.C. Burke, J.C. Boykin, and J.R. Williford. 2009. Narrow-row cotton production under irrigated and non-irrigated environment: plant population and lint yield. Journal Cotton Science. 13: 48-55.
· Rogers, J.B., D.S. Murray, L.M. Verhalen, and P. Claypool, 1996. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technology. 10(1): 107-114.
· Salimi, H., M. Bazoubandi, and M. Fereydounpour. 2010. Investigating different methods of integrated weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Electronic Journal of Crop Production. 3(1): 187-197. (In Persian).
· Sankula, S., M.J. van Gessel, W.E. Kee, C.E. Beste, and K.L. Everts. 2001. Narrow row spacing does not affect lima bean yield or management of weeds and other pests. Horticultural Science. 36(5): 884-888.
· Sardar, M., M.A. Behdani, S.V. Eslami, and S. Mahmoodi. 2015. The effect of different weeds control and tillage systems on cotton’s weeds manangment in second planting after of winter wheat. Journal of Plant Protection. 29(1): 95-101. (In Persian).
· Toorabi, S., and M. Armin, 2018. Effect of integrated weed management systems on quantitative and qualitativeyield of sugar beet under different irrigation regimes. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 24(3): 267-277.
· Tursun, N., A. Datta, S. Budak, Z. Kantarci, and S.Z. Knezevic. 2016. Row spacing impacts the critical period for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Phytoparasitica. 44(1): 139-149.
· Webster, T.M. 2007. Cotton row spacing and plant population affect weed seed production. In World Cotton Research Conference-4, Lubbock, Texas, USA, 10-14 September 2007. International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC).

_||_

· Akram Ghaderi, F., A. Ghajari, M. Younes Abadi, D. Ghafari, and M. Alazamani. 2004. Determination of the critical period of weed control in Cotton. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 37 (1):167-175. (In Persian).
· Andrew, I., J. Storkey, and D. Sparkes, 2015. Areview of the potential for competitive cereal cultivars as a tool in integrated weed management. Weed Research. 55 (3): 239-248.
· Ardestani, M.M., F. Ghaderi-Far, E. Zeinali, M. Ghorbani, and M. Gorzin. 2018. The effect of row spacing on plant architecture, yield and seed quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 16 (2):435-446. (In Persian).
· Armin, M., M.E. Kashki, and M. Heidari. 2014. The effect of number of weedings and the type of herbicides on yield and yield components of cotton. Iranian Journal of Weed Ecology. 2(1): 45-54. (In Persian).
· Ayyadurai, P., R. Poonguzhalan, and J. Gokila. 2013. Effect of crop-weed competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL.)-a review. Agricultural Reviwe. 34 (2):157-161.
· Barati Mahmoodi, H., M. Jami Alahmadi, M.H. Rashed Mohassel, S.N. Mahmoodi, and N. Shikhzadeh Mohammadabadi. 2011. The effect of integrated weed management (chemical and mechanical) on density and dry weight of weed and introduction of new herbicide (Envoke) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) field in Birjand region. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 9(2): 176-181. (In Persian).
· Boquet, D. 2005. Cotton in ultra-narrow row spacing: Plant density and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Agronmy Journal. 97: 279-287.
· Brodrick, R., M. Bange, S. Milroy, and G. Hammer. 2012. Physiological determinants of high yielding ultra-narrow row cotton: Biomass accumulation and partitioning. Field Crops Research. 134:122-129.
· Brodrick, R., M.P. Bange, S.P. Milroy, and G. Hammer. 2010. Yield and maturity of ultra-narrow row cotton in high input production systems. Agronmy Journal. 102 (3): 843-848.
· Byrd, J.D., and H.D. Coble. 1991. Interference of selected weeds in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technology. 5 (2):263-269.
· Fahad, S., S. Hussain, B.S. Chauhan, S. Saud, C. Wu, S. Hassan, M. Tanveer, A. Jan, and J. Huang. 2015. Weed growth and crop yield loss in wheat as influenced by row spacing and weed emergence times. Crop Protection. 71: 101-108.
· Ghaderifar, F., M.S. Aali, O. Cancholi, M.Yousefi-Daz, and A. Miri. 2012. Yield and fiber quality comparison of cotton planted in ultra-narrow row and conventional row. Electronic Journal of Crop Production. 5(2): 75-91. (In Persian).
· Ghajary, A., A. Miri, M. Zangi, and S. Soltani. 2012. Determination of the best suitable planting pattern and plant density of early maturing cotton cultivars following canola harvesting. Journal of Crop Prodction. 4: 103-121. (In Persian).
· Ghorbanpour, E., F.Ghaderifar, and J. Gherekhloo. 2014. Effect of row spacing on competition of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Journal of Crop Production and Processing. 4(12): 285-294. (In Persian).
· Jost, P.H., and J.T. Cothren. 2001. Phenotypic alterations and crop maturity differences in ultra-narrow row and conventionally spacedcotton. Crop Science. 41 (4): 1150-1159.
· Manalil, S., O. Coast, J. Werth, and B.S. Chauhan. 2017. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) through weed-crop competition: A review. Crop Protection.53-59.
· Mashingaidze, A.B., W. van Der Werf, L.A.P. Lotz, J. Chipomho, and M.J. Kropff. 2009. Narrow rows reduce biomass and seed production of weeds and increase maize yield. Annals of Applied Biology. 155(2): 207-218.
· Mehrabadi, H.R. 2018. Investigation of agronomic and morphologic responses ofdifferent cotton types in ultra narrow row system. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 16(3): 615-628. (In Persian).
· Mohammadi, S., and M.A. Baghestani. 2014. Integrated weed management effects on the growth characteristics and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum.). Iranian Journal of Cotton Researches. 1(2): 93-104. (In Persian).
· Nichols, S., C. Snipes, and M. Jones, 2004. Cotton growth, lint yield, and fiber quality as affected by row spacing and cultivar. Journal Cotton Science. 8: 1-12.
· Porrezaii, M., A. Siyadat, and M. Tohidi. 2011. Effects of planting pattern on yield and components of two cultivars of sunflower oil in Dezful. Journal of Plant Protection Science. 2(6): 83-95. (In Persian).
· Raefizadeh, A., M. Armin, and M. Jamimoeini. 2018. The effect of weed interference duration morphological traits and yield of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in conventional and ultra narrow row spacing condition. Journal of Crop Production Research. 10(1): 33-50. (In Persian).
· Raimondi, M.A., R.S.D. Oliveira Junior, J. Constantin, L.H.M. Franchini, E. Blainski, and R.T. Raimondi. 2017. Weed interference in cotton plants grown with reduced spacing in the second harvest season. Revista Caatinga. 30(1): 1-12.
· Reddy, K.N., I.C. Burke, J.C. Boykin, and J.R. Williford. 2009. Narrow-row cotton production under irrigated and non-irrigated environment: plant population and lint yield. Journal Cotton Science. 13: 48-55.
· Rogers, J.B., D.S. Murray, L.M. Verhalen, and P. Claypool, 1996. Ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technology. 10(1): 107-114.
· Salimi, H., M. Bazoubandi, and M. Fereydounpour. 2010. Investigating different methods of integrated weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Electronic Journal of Crop Production. 3(1): 187-197. (In Persian).
· Sankula, S., M.J. van Gessel, W.E. Kee, C.E. Beste, and K.L. Everts. 2001. Narrow row spacing does not affect lima bean yield or management of weeds and other pests. Horticultural Science. 36(5): 884-888.
· Sardar, M., M.A. Behdani, S.V. Eslami, and S. Mahmoodi. 2015. The effect of different weeds control and tillage systems on cotton’s weeds manangment in second planting after of winter wheat. Journal of Plant Protection. 29(1): 95-101. (In Persian).
· Toorabi, S., and M. Armin, 2018. Effect of integrated weed management systems on quantitative and qualitativeyield of sugar beet under different irrigation regimes. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 24(3): 267-277.
· Tursun, N., A. Datta, S. Budak, Z. Kantarci, and S.Z. Knezevic. 2016. Row spacing impacts the critical period for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Phytoparasitica. 44(1): 139-149.
· Webster, T.M. 2007. Cotton row spacing and plant population affect weed seed production. In World Cotton Research Conference-4, Lubbock, Texas, USA, 10-14 September 2007. International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC).