Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:23:14.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management Strategies for No-Till Soybean (Glycine max) Grown on Clay Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Clarence J. Swanton ,
Tony J. Vyn ,
Kevin Chandler  and
Anil Shrestha
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; Email [email protected]
Tony J. Vyn
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; Email [email protected]
Kevin Chandler
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; Email [email protected]
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; Email [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management strategies are needed for no-till soybean grown on clay soils. The effect of several weed management strategies on weed biomass, soybean yield, and gross return were evaluated in 1993, 1994, and 1995 on clay soils at two locations in southern Ontario. Soybean seeds were planted in narrow (19 cm) and wide (76 cm) rows with or without a rye cover crop. Herbicide treatments included glyphosate alone, glyphosate followed by imazethapyr + metribuzin applied PRE, and glyphosate followed by acifluorfen + bentazon applied POST. Two additional treatments with interrow cultivation were included in the wide-row soybean plots with glyphosate and glyphosate + PRE treatments. A nontreated check plot without rye was also included. Presence of a cover crop did not affect weed biomass or soybean yield. The glyphosate + broadcast PRE treatment provided the most consistent weed control both in narrow- and wide-row soybean. The weed control in this treatment ranged from 92 to 100%. The other treatments provided variable weed control across years and locations. The narrow- row plots with glyphosate + broadcast PRE treatment provided the most consistent soybean yields that were generally higher than the other treatments and ranged from 2,560 to 3,420 kg/ha. Soybean yields varied across locations and years in other treatments. Similar weed control and soybean yields were obtained with banded PRE herbicide + interrow cultivation and PRE treatments; however, herbicide use was 60% lower in banded PRE herbicide + interrow cultivation treatment. Narrow-row soybean averaged 27% higher gross returns than wide-row soybean for all broadcast herbicide treatments. Narrow-row soybean with PRE herbicide provided the highest gross returns. No-till soybean in narrow rows with preplant glyphosate and broadcast PRE treatment was the most risk-efficient weed management system on clay soils.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidmetribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-oneacifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidbentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxideglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinerye, Secale cereale L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Northrup King S 20-20'common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGCover cropsryeintegrated weed managementrow widthIWM, integrated weed managementLAI, leaf area indexPOST, postemergencePPFD, photosynthetic photon flux densityPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 660 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Barnes, J. P. and Putnam, A. R. 1983. Rye residues contribute weed suppression in no-tillage cropping systems. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:1045–1057.Google Scholar
Boehlje, M. D. and Eidman, V. R. 1984. Farm Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 806 p.Google Scholar
Bolton, E. F., Dirks, V. A., and Mcdonell, M. M. 1982. The effect of drainage, rotation and fertilizer on corn yield, plant height, leaf nutrient composition, and physical properties of Brookston clay soil in southwestern Ontario. Can. J. Soil Sci. 62:297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Philbrook, B. D., and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Velvetleaf and giant foxtail control for solid-seeded soybean production in three tillage intensities. J. Prod. Agric. 3:302–308.Google Scholar
Chichester, F. W. and Richardson, C. W. 1992. Sediment and nutrient loss from clay soils as affected by tillage. J. Environ. Qual. 21:587–590.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D., Heatherly, L. G., and Wesley, R. A. 1995. Weed control in no-till doublecrop soybean (Glycine max) following winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) on a clay soil. Weed Technol. 9:306–315.Google Scholar
Evans, L. J. and Cameron, B. H. 1983. The Brookston series in southwestern Ontario: characteristics, classification and problems in defining a soil series. Can. J. Soil Sci. 63:339–352.Google Scholar
Fontes, L.A.N. and Ohlrogge, A. J. 1972. Influence of seed size and population on yield and other characteristics of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Agron. J. 64:833–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaynor, J. D. and Findlay, W. I. 1995. Soil and phosphorus loss from conservation and conventional tillage in corn production. J. Environ. Qual. 24:734–741.Google Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., Stone, J. A., and Vyn, T. J. 1987. Tillage systems and atrazine and alachlor residues on a poorly drained soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 67:959–963.Google Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Corn and soybean response to various seedbed qualities produced by modified no-till systems on clay soils. Agron. Abstr. pp. 124–125.Google Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Effectiveness of soil-applied herbicides with mechanical weed control for conservation tillage systems in soybean. Agron. J. 89:579–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:365–370.Google Scholar
Liebl, R., Simmons, F. W., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1992. Effect of rye (Secale cereale) mulch on weed control and soil moisture in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:838–846.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E. and Hoverstad, T. R. 1991. Imazethapyr for weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:845–851.Google Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1988. Economic analysis of four weed management systems. Weed Sci. 36:846–849.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Weed control using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10:431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. J., Gillespie, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of cover crop mulches on weed emergence, weed biomass, and soybean (Glycine max) development. Weed Technol. 8:512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, J. E., Gerik, T. J., Chichester, F. W., Martin, J. R., and Chandler, J. M. 1990. A no-tillage farming system for clay soils. J. Prod. Agric. 3:219–227.Google Scholar
Nowak, P. J. 1983. Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38:162–165.Google Scholar
Potter, K. N., Morrison, J. E. Jr., and Torbert, H. A. 1996. Tillage intensity effects on corn and grain sorghum growth and productivity on a vertisol. J. Prod. Agric. 9:385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloneker, L. L. and Moldenhauer, W. C. 1977. Measuring the amounts of crop residue remaining after tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 32:231–236.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 503 p.Google Scholar
Stone, J. A. and Wires, K. C. 1990. Water content and soil core volume on Brookston clay loam. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:255–258.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39:195–199.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Influence of interference from a mixed weed species stand on soybean (Glycine max) (L.) Merr.) growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1293–1304.Google Scholar
Vyn, T. J. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Determining the factors responsible for and method to overcome the limitations of conservation cropping systems on clay soils. Final Report of the Canada-Ontario Green Plan (Agriculture Canada On-Farm Research Program 1993–1997). Crop Science Department, University of Guelph. p. 53.Google Scholar
Vyn, T. J., Opoku, G., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Residue management and minimum tillage systems for soybeans following wheat. Agron. J. 90:131–138.Google Scholar
Wagner-Riddle, C., Gillespie, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Rye cover crop management impact on soil water content, soil temperature and soybean growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:485–495.Google Scholar
Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M., and Byth, D. E. 1966. Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58:99–102.Google Scholar
Wesley, R. A. and Cooke, F. T. 1988. Wheat-soybean double-crop system on clay soil in the Mississippi valley area. J. Prod. Agric. 1:166–171.Google Scholar