Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T15:57:28.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical periods of weed control in soybean for full field and in-furrow interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Juan J. Eyherabide  and
María G. Cendoya
María G. Cendoya
Affiliation:
Departamento de Introducción a las Ciencias Agrarias, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. CC 276, 7620 Balcarce, Argentina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean and annual weed competition studies were conducted over 2 yr in Balcarce, Argentina, to define the critical period of weed control and to compare yield losses in soybean, when weeds competed in the total cropping area (row plus furrow) or only in the furrow. In the first year, broad-leaf weeds were more abundant than annual grasses, but in the second year, grasses were more abundant. Critical weed-free periods required to prevent yield losses of 2.5 and 10% were long and consistent for both years and for both types of competition, lasting between 50 and 61 d after crop emergence (DAE) or the V8 to V9 and R2 to R3 soybean growth stages, respectively. No differences in predicted yield for both places of competition was found when weeds grew after the V4 or later crop growth stages (35 DAE). The critical periods of weed removal to prevent equivalent yield losses were different in both years. Varying between 1 DAE in 1986–1987 and 30 DAE in 1988–1989, for 2.5% yield losses, corresponding to growth stages between V0 and V3 to V4, respectively. For yield losses lower than 10%, the critical periods of weed removal varied between 15 DAE in 1986–1987 and 35 DAE in 1988–1989, corresponding to the V2 and V4 crop growth stages, respectively. Nonsignificant differences in predicted yield were found between places of competition, if weeds were removed before V4 (35 DAE), maintaining yield losses lower than 20%.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. cv. ‘A3127’Banded herbicidecrop row weed controlcrop yield lossweed competition in furrowweed interference
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 162 - 166
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

Andrade, F. H. 1995. Analysis of growth and yield of maize, sunflower and soybean grown at Balcarce, Argentina. Field Crops Res. 41:1–12.Google Scholar
Bedmar, F., Eyherabide, J. J., and Leaden, M. I. 1987. Evaluación de la aplicación de herbicidas preemergentes en girasol en cobertura total y en bandas con labores de escarda. V Reunión Técnica Nacional de Girasol. Bahía Blanca, Prov. de Buenos Aires. pp. 195–200.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Burnside, O. C., Orf, J. H., Ristau, E. A., and Puetmann, K. J. 1997. Field evaluation of soybean (Glycine max) genotypes for weed competitiveness. Weed Sci. 45:31–37.Google Scholar
Cabria, F. N. and Culot, P. H. 1994. Selección y utilización de características edáficas para discriminar series de Argiudoles en el sudeste bonaerense. Cienc. Suelo 12 (2): 41–46.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D., Williams, F. M., and Ritter, R. L. 1981. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:339–342.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyherabide, J. J. 1993a. Evaluation of flumiclorac-pentyl in mixtures with low doses of post-emergence herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 14. Ann. Appl. Biol. Suppl. 122:64–65.Google Scholar
Eyherabide, J. J. 1993b. Evaluation of pre-emergence applications of flumioxazin alone and with imazaquin and imazethapyr against weeds in soybeans. Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 14. Ann. Appl. Biol. Suppl. 122:62–63.Google Scholar
Falcon, L. M. de, F. and Gondo, G. 1991. Nivel de daño de yuyo colorado Amaranthus quitensis HBK en el cultivo de soja. XII Reun. Argentina Sobre Maleza Control 3:35–44.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Special Rep. No. 53. Ames, IA: Iowa State University of Science and Technical Cooperative Extension Service. 20 p. Revised, 1988.Google Scholar
Griffiths, W. 1994. Evolution of herbicide programs in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 8:338–343.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Surgeoner, G. A., and Roberts, W. P. 1994. Herbicide reduction in North America: in Canada an opportunity for motivation and growth in weed management. Weed Technol. 8:366–371.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Van Kooten, B. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Hall, E. M., and Fawcett, R. S. 1993. On-farm evaluation of mechanical and chemical weed management practices in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:1001–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, W. T. and Bauman, T. T. 1989. Interference between soybean (Glycine max) and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) under Indiana field conditions. Weed Sci. 37:753–760.Google Scholar
Huet, S., Bouvier, A., Gruet, M. A., and Jolivet, E. 1996. Calibration and prediction. Pages 133–135 In Statistical Tools for Nonlineal Regression. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M. 1994. Changes in pesticide usage in the United Kingdom: policies, results, and long-term implications. Weed Technol. 8:360–364.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Olivier, L. R. 1998. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, J. H., Brando, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest. Art. News Summary 14:159–163.Google Scholar
Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. Robustaalba or var. Robusta purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665–674.Google Scholar
SAGPyA. 1999. www.sgpya.mecon.gov.ar/agricu/publicaciones.Google Scholar
SAS/STAT example programs. 1996. Computing R2 for non linear models. SAS Sample Library Release 6.11. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:84–89.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. and Weber, C. R. 1956. Effects of annual weeds on the growth and yield of soybeans. Agron. J. 48:467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Wiese, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [(Glycine max) (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. A review. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Control, Oregon State University. pp. 83–93.Google Scholar