Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:51:47.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Row Spacing Influences the Critical Timing for Weed Removal in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stevan Z. Knezevic ,
Sean P. Evans  and
Mike Mainz
Stevan Z. Knezevic*
Affiliation:
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728-2828
Sean P. Evans
Affiliation:
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728-2828
Mike Mainz
Affiliation:
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska, 57905 866 Road, Concord, NE 68728-2828
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Row spacing affects the time of canopy closure, thus influencing the growth and development of both crop and weeds. Field studies were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001 at Mead, NE, and 2000 and 2001 at Concord in eastern Nebraska to determine the effects of three row spacings (19, 38, and 76 cm) on the critical time for weed removal (CTWR) in dryland soybean. A three-parameter logistic equation was fit to data relating relative crop yield to increasing duration of weed presence. In general, earliest CTWR occurred in the 76-cm rows, and coincided with the first trifoliate stage of soybean. Latest CTWR occurred in the 19-cm rows and coincided with the third trifoliate. The CTWR in 38-cm rows occurred at the second trifoliate. Practical implications are that planting soybean in wide rows reduces early-season crop tolerance to weeds requiring earlier weed management programs than in narrower rows.

Keywords

Glyphosate-resistant soybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrIntegrated weed managementrow spacingtiming of removalweed interferenceCPWC, critical period of weed controlCTWR, critical time for weed removalDAE, days after emergenceDM, dry matterGDD, growing degree daysHTCs, herbicide tolerant cropsIWM, integrated weed managementPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 666 - 673
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

Bosnic, C. A. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27:562–565.Google Scholar
Elmore, R. W. 1998. Soybean cultivar responses to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J. Prod. Agric 11:326–331.Google Scholar
Evans, S. P. 2001. Effects of Varying N Supply on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays L.). . University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. 198 p.Google Scholar
Gilmore, E. C. and Rogers, R. S. 1958. Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn. Agron. J. 50:611–615.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1999. A risk management perspective on integrated weed management. in Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binghampton, NY: Food Product Press. Pp. 167–188.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Hamill, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Chandler, K., Sikkema, P., Tardif, F., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Weed control in glufosinate-tolerant corn (Zea mays L). Weed Tech 14:578–585.Google Scholar
Kasasian, L. and Seeyave, J. 1969. Critical periods of weed competition. PANS 15:208–212.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) emergence is critical in pigweed—sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1999. Estimates of physiological determinants for Amaranthus retroflexus . Weed Sci. 47:291–296.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) in corn (Zea mays L). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Comparison of empirical models depicting density of Amaranthus retroflexus L. and relative leaf area as predictors of yield loss in maize (Zea mays L). Weed Res. 35:207–214.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometric Methods. London: Macmillan. Pp. 68–95.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. 2001. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Martin, S. G., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2001. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci. 49:326–333.Google Scholar
Moll, S. 1997. Commercial experience and benefits from glyphosate-tolerant crops. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds 3:931–940.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yukubu, Y., Weise, S. W., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44:856–870.Google Scholar
Nieto, H. J., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzales, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS 14:159–166.Google Scholar
Rasche, E. and Gadsby, M. 1997. Glufosinate amonium tolerant crops—international commercial developments and experiences. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds 3:941–946.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS Online Doc, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 850 p.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P., Knezevic, S. Z., Tardif, F., Hamill, A., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of SAN1269H for weed control in no-till corn (Zea mays L). Weed Technol. 13:283–289.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5:648–656.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9:113–118.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dibo, A. A., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agron. J. 86:591–595.Google Scholar
USDA/NASS. 2000. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1999 Field Crops Summary. United States Department of Agriculture: Ag Ch 1(00)a. 112 p.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Mer]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 145–155.Google Scholar