Abstract
Abstract Research 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.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Season-long interference by 60 mungbean plants m −2 reduced cotton yield by 84%.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- 60 mungbean plants m −2e0
- Interactor
- mungbean
.jpg?width=60)
Vigna radiatae0weed - Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 84%e0
- Qualifier
- season-long interferencee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“60 mungbean plants m −2 resulted in an 84% reduction in cotton yield”
e1“with season-long interference”
Claim · model-written summary
A dynamic cotton weed-control period function was developed using weed density as a covariate.
Verbatim
e0“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”
Claim · model-written summary
At a 1% yield-loss threshold, the cotton critical weed-control period extended through the full season at all tested weed densities.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- CPWCe0
- Direction
- extended for the full growing seasone0
- Qualifier
- 1% yield-loss thresholde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“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”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
At 60 mungbean plants m −2, a single weed-control input still left a minimum cotton yield loss of 35%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Interactor
- mungbeanVigna radiatae0weed
- Outcome
- yield losse0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Qualifier
- 60 mungbean plants m −2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The minimum yield loss from a single weed control input was 35% at the highest weed density of 60 mungbean plants m −2”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Replacing weed density with weed biomass improved the critical weed-removal time relationship.
Verbatim
e0“The relationship for the critical time of weed removal was further improved by substituting weed biomass for weed density in the relationship”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna radiata · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.