Abstract
A field experiment was conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the effect of spurred anoda interference on yield loss of two cotton cultivars, ‘Delta Pine 5415’ and ‘Pima S-6’, grown under wide (1 m) (WR) and ultra narrow (0.25 m) row (UNR) spacings. The relationship between spurred anoda density and dry weight per plot was linear each year. At a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 , spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m −2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively. However, spurred anoda did not interfere with seed cotton yield in 2001, which was probably attributable to the low branch development in that year. Yield losses exceeded 55% at a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 compared with controls in both WR and UNR. The effect of spurred anoda density on boll numbers was nearly identical in 2000 and 2002, regardless of cotton cultivar and row spacing. Boll weights decreased in response to spurred anoda interference. Spurred anoda interference resulted in a decrease in cotton branch dry weight in WR but not in UNR. The yield decrease as a result of spurred anoda interference in WR was due to reduction in boll retention or fruiting sites (predicated on a decrease in branch weight). However, in UNR, the yield decrease was due to plant mortality; the plant density of both cotton cultivars decreased by one plant for each additional spurred anoda, but the yield per plant for surviving plants remained constant. Neither WR nor UNR cotton had significant advantage in response to spurred anoda interference. The decreased boll weight observed in UNR, and the failure to increase boll numbers m −2 to compensate for decreased boll weight in UNR compared with WR, may limit its appeal to cotton producers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
Spurred anoda density and dry weight per plot were linearly related each year.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- spurred anoda densitye0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- spurred anoda dry weight per plote1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The relationship between spurred anoda density and dry weight per plot was linear each year.”
t0“cotton”
e1“At a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 , spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m −2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At 8 m −2, spurred anoda dry weight was 507 g m −2 in 2000.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- spurred anoda dry weight per plote0
- Value
- 507e0
- Qualifier
- 2000e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 , spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m −2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 8 m −2, spurred anoda dry weight was 322 g m −2 in 2001.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- spurred anoda dry weight per plote0
- Value
- 322e0
- Qualifier
- 2001e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 , spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m −2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 8 m −2, spurred anoda dry weight was 777 g m −2 in 2002.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- spurred anoda dry weight per plote0
- Value
- 777 g m −2e0
- Qualifier
- 2002e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 , spurred anoda dry weight per plot was 507, 322, and 777 g m −2 in 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Spurred anoda did not interfere with seed cotton yield in 2001.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- spurred anodae0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- did not interferee0
- Qualifier
- 2001e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spurred anoda did not interfere with seed cotton yield in 2001”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield losses exceeded 55% at spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 in both row spacings relative to controls.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- spurred anoda density of 8 m −2e0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- Yield lossese0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 55%e0
- Qualifier
- both WR and UNRe0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield losses exceeded 55% at a spurred anoda density of 8 m −2 compared with controls in both WR and UNR.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of spurred anoda density on cotton boll numbers was nearly identical in 2000 and 2002 across cultivar and row spacing.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- spurred anoda densitye0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- boll numberse0
- Qualifier
- nearly identical in 2000 and 2002e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of spurred anoda density on boll numbers was nearly identical in 2000 and 2002, regardless of cotton cultivar and row spacing.”
Claim · model-written summary
Boll weights decreased with spurred anoda interference.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- spurred anoda interferencee0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- Boll weightse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Boll weights decreased in response to spurred anoda interference.”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Spurred anoda interference decreased cotton branch dry weight in wide rows.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Spurred anoda interferencee0
- Interactor
- Spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- cotton branch dry weighte0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- WRe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spurred anoda interference resulted in a decrease in cotton branch dry weight in WR but not in UNR.”
Claim · model-written summary
Spurred anoda interference did not decrease cotton branch dry weight in ultra narrow rows.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Spurred anoda interferencee0
- Interactor
- Spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- cotton branch dry weighte0
- Direction
- not in UNRe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spurred anoda interference resulted in a decrease in cotton branch dry weight in WR but not in UNR.”
Claim · model-written summary
In wide rows, yield decrease under spurred anoda interference was attributed to reduced boll retention or fruiting sites.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- spurred anoda interferencee0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- yield decreasee0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- reduction in boll retention or fruiting sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield decrease as a result of spurred anoda interference in WR was due to reduction in boll retention or fruiting sites (predicated on a decrease in branch weight).”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
In ultra narrow rows, yield decrease under spurred anoda interference was attributed to plant mortality.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- yield decreasee0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- plant mortalitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, in UNR, the yield decrease was due to plant mortality; the plant density of both cotton cultivars decreased by one plant for each additional spurred anoda, but the yield per plant for surviving plants remained constant.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton plant density decreased by one plant for each additional spurred anoda in ultra narrow rows.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- plant densitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- one plant for each additional spurred anodae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the plant density of both cotton cultivars decreased by one plant for each additional spurred anoda”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield per surviving cotton plant remained constant under spurred anoda interference in ultra narrow rows.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Spurred anodat0
- Interactor
- Spurred anodat0weed
- Outcome
- yield per plant for surviving plantse0
- Direction
- remained constante0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield per plant for surviving plants remained constant”
t0“Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) interference in wide row and ultra narrow row cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither row spacing conferred significant advantage in response to spurred anoda interference.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- spurred anoda interferencee0
- Interactor
- spurred anodae0weed
- Outcome
- advantagee0
- Direction
- Neithere0
- Qualifier
- WR nor UNRe0
- Comparator
- WR nor UNRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither WR nor UNR cotton had significant advantage in response to spurred anoda interference.”
Claim · model-written summary
Decreased boll weight and lack of compensatory boll number increase in ultra narrow rows may limit producer appeal.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- may limit its appeal to cotton producerse0
- Qualifier
- decreased boll weight observed in UNRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The decreased boll weight observed in UNR, and the failure to increase boll numbers m −2 to compensate for decreased boll weight in UNR compared with WR, may limit its appeal to cotton producers.”