Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:56:15.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition and control of weeds in soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rajender Singh Chhokar  and
Rajender Singh Balyan
Rajender Singh Chhokar
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar—125 004, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two field experiments were carried out from 1993 to 1995 to evaluate the critical period of weed control and to develop suitable weed management practices for jungle rice, horse purslane, and cockscomb in soybean. Horse purslane was more competitive during early growth stages (up to 45 days after sowing [DAS]) and cockscomb was more competitive during later growth stages, whereas jungle rice was competitive throughout the growing season. The critical period of weed control was found to be 30 to 45 DAS. Weed-free maintenance up to 45 DAS resulted in a 74% increase in grain yield of soybean over the unweeded control. Keeping soybean weed free for 45 d or allowing weeds to remain in the crop for less than 30 d resulted in no significant yield loss. Sequential application of a reduced rate of soil-applied trifluralin 1.0 kg ha–1 (0.67 ×) with postemergence fluazifop 0.75 kg ha–1 (0.75 ×) or a reduced rate of soil-applied trifluralin or pendimethalin at 1.0 kg ha–1 (0.67 ×) followed by hand hoeing 35 DAS provided better control of a broad spectrum of weeds than a single application of a postemergence herbicide applied at reduced or recommended rates. Integration of reduced rates of soil-applied herbicides with post-emergence herbicides or hand hoeing 35 DAS produced soybean yields similar to the hand-weeded treatment. Compared to the weed-free or integrated weed control, a single application of soil-applied or postemergence herbicide did not control a broad spectrum of weeds and reduced soybean yield.

Keywords

Chlorimuronfluazifoppendimethalintrifluralin, cockscomb (celosia), Celosia argentea L. CELARhorse purslane, Trianthema portulacastrum Linn TRTPOjungle rice, Echinochloa colona L. ECHCOsoybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]Critical periodECHCOCELARTRTPO
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 107 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Balyan, R. S. 1992. Integrated weed management studies in soybean {Glycine max L.). Oil Crop Newslett. 9: 42–44.Google Scholar
Balyan, R. S. and Bhan, V. M. 1986. Emergence, growth and reproduction of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) as influenced by environmental conditions. Weed Sci. 34: 516–519.Google Scholar
Balyan, R. S., Malik, R. K., Panwar, R. S., and Malik, R. S. 1990. Post-emergence herbicides for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Oil Crop Newslett. 7: 11–13.Google Scholar
Bhan, V. M. 1976. Weeds in soybean: how to control them. World Farming 18: 32–34.Google Scholar
Bhan, V. M., Singh, M., and Maurya, R. A. 1974. Studies on requirement of weed-free maintenance in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 6: 12–16.Google Scholar
Chhokar, R. S. 1994. Studies on the Competition and Control of Weeds in Soybean (Glycine max L. Mer.). . Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.Google Scholar
Feldick, T. and Kapusta, G. 1986. Influence of weed size on the efficacy of reduced rates of postemergence applied acifluorfen, bentazon, imazaquin and DPX-F6025 in soybeans. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 41: 47.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S. Jr., Bauman, T. T., Williams, J. L. Jr., and Schreiber, M. M. 1980. Growth analysis of soybean (Glycine max) in competition with velvetleaf (Abutilon theopbrasti). Weed Sci. 28: 729–734.Google Scholar
Harris, T. C. and Ritter, R. L. 1987. Giant green foxtail (Setaria viridis) and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) competition in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 35: 663–668.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1986. Intensive soybean herbicide management programs. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39: 94.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, K., Raju, B., Reddy, V. C., and Kenchaiah, K. 1981. Critical stage for weed competition in soybean, groundnut and maize. Proc. 8th Asian Pacific Weed Sci. Soc. Conf. 11: 123–127.Google Scholar
Mishra, O. P., Tiwari, S., and Ram, K. 1990. Study on the effect of butachlor and thiobencarb on soybean and associated weeds under two dates of planting. Proceedings of the Indian Society of Weed Science Annual Meeting. Jabalpur, India. 80 p.Google Scholar
Panse, V. G. and Sukhatme, P. V. 1967. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. Pages 592–593 in Panse, V. G., ed. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Rao, V. S. 1992. Principles of Weed Science. Oxford, Great Britain: IBH Publishing, pp. 352–353.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. and Stoller, E. W. 1989. The effects of soybean (Glycine max) interference on the canopy architecture of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theopbrasti). Weed Sci. 37: 187–195.Google Scholar
Sen, D. N. 1981. Ecological approaches to Indian weeds. Geobios Int. pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Bruff, S. A., and Smith, C. A. 1991. Effect of imazaquin and chlorimuron plus metribuzin on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference in soybean. Weed Technol. 5: 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-crop competition: A Review. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 196 p.Google Scholar