Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:48:48.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control for Close-Drilled Soybeans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. M. Wax
L. M. Wax*
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Ser., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Urbana, Illinois 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Delayed planting or “stale seedbed” for weed control in close-drilled (20-cm rows) soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Amsoy’] was evaluated for 3 years. The system combined final seedbed preparation 3 to 6 weeks before planting with herbicide application at planting time. The best control of six weed species and highest soybean yields were obtained by a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) application at the time of seedbed preparation followed by 3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methylurea (linuron) application at planting and by linuron application at planting without the early trifluralin application. Applications of 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion (paraquat) at planting, either with or without trifluralin treatments, resulted in less weed control and lower soybean yields than comparable treatments with linuron. However, even the best treatments failed to provide the weed control necessary to prevent substantial soybean yield reduction in heavy infestations of weeds that emerge in large numbers after planting, and that resist the phytotoxic action of the herbicides.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 16 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © 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

1. Andersen, R. N. and Ziebart, D. J. 1968. Evaluation of herbicides in a soybean weed nursery. Res. Rep. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 25:102–106.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, G. W. 1964. Weed control in soybeans planted in a “stale seedbed.” Proc. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:66–67.Google Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C. and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage and amiben. Weeds 12:109–112.Google Scholar
4. Carlson, W. C. and Wax, L. M. 1968. Factors influencing the phytotoxicity of chloroxuron. Weed Sci. 18:98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Duncan, D. B. 1965. A Bayesian approach to multiple comparisons. Technometrics 7:171–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Lehman, W. F. and Lambert, J. W. 1960. Effects of spacing of soybean plants between and within rows on yield and its components. Agron. J. 52:84–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lovely, W. G. and Staniforth, D. W. 1968. System of weed control for soybean production using variable row widths. Proc. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:28–29.Google Scholar
8. Pendleton, J. W., Bernard, R. L., and Hadley, H. H. 1960. Grow soybeans in narrow rows. Illinois Res. 2(1):3–4.Google Scholar
9. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.Google Scholar
10. Ross, M. A. and Williams, J. L. Jr. 1969. An analysis of the stale seedbed technique for Indiana soybean production. Proc. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 24:13–14.Google Scholar
11. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar