Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:55:13.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Frank Forcella ,
Mark E. Westgate  and
Dennis D. Warnes
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
Research Agronomist, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Morris, MN 56267;
Mark E. Westgate
Affiliation:
Plant Physiologist, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Morris, MN 56267;
Dennis D. Warnes
Affiliation:
Professor, West Central Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Morris, MN 56267.
Get access

Abstract

Crops grown in narrow rows (NR, 0.25 to 0.38 m) shade weed seedlings more than do those grown in traditional wide rows (WR, 0.76 m). NR crops may require less herbicide and interrow cultivation than WR crops for equally effective weed control. This hypothesis was tested by comparing weed control and crop yield in NR and WR crops when the following percentages of recommended application rates (RAR) of standard herbicides were applied: soybean, 0, 50 and 100%; sunflower, 0, 25, 50, and 100%; and corn, 0, 33, and 100% in three separate sets of experiments conducted over 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively. In all treatments with 100% RAR, excellent weed control prevented reductions in crop yield. When only 25 to 50% RAR was applied, weed control was consistently high in NR (82 to 99% control), but variable in WR (42 to 99% control). Weed control and crop yields typically were lowest in NR without herbicides. Interrow cultivation controlled 0 to 81% of weeds in WR crops. In reduced herbicide treatments (25 to 50% RAR), yields of NR soybean and sunflower typically were about equal to those in WR with 100% RAR, but NR corn yields were about 10% less. Considering the reduced herbicide use and lower weed control costs, planting corn, soybean, and sunflower in narrow rows may represent a practical form of low-input production of these important crops.

Keywords

Low-input agriculturesustainable agricultureweed controlrow widthcornmaizesoybeansunflower
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 161 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

1.Auld, B. A., Kemp, D.R., and Medd, R.W.. 1983. The influence of spatial arrangement on grain yield of wheat. Australian J. Agric. Research 34:99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Becker, R. L., Durgan, B.R., and Gonsolus, J.L.. 1988. Cultural and chemical weed control in field crops. AG-BU-3157. Minnesota Extension Service, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
3.Burnside, O. C., and Colwell, W.L.. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12:109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 7:169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Carter, P. R. 1985. Corn lodging prevention: Keeping it from going down. Crops and Soils 37:8–11.Google Scholar
6.Cates, J. S., and Cox, H.R.. 1912. The weed factor in the cultivation of corn. Bull. 257. Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Dept. of Agric.Google Scholar
7.Forcella, F. 1988. Importance of pesticide alternatives to sustainable agriculture. National Forum 78:41–43.Google Scholar
8.Forcella, F., and Burnside, O.C.. (in press). Pest management—weeds. In Hatfield, J.L. and Karlen, D.R. (eds). Sustainable Agriculture: The New Conventional Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
9.Hardman, L. L. 1987. Variety trials of farm crops. AD-MR-1953. Minnesota Experiment Station, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
10.Holt, R. F., and Timmons, D.R.. 1968. Influence of precipitation, soil water and plant population interaction on corn grain yields. Agronomy J. 60:379–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E.E., and King, R.P.. 1988. Economic analysis of four weed management systems. Weed Science 36:846–849.Google Scholar
12.Majid, H. R., and Schneiter, A.A.. 1987. Yield and quality of semidwarf and standard-height sunflower hybrids grown at five plant populations. Agronomy J. 79:681–684.Google Scholar
13.Majid, H. R., and Schneiter, A. A. 1988. Semidwarf and conventional-height sunflower performance at five plant populations. Agronomy J. 80:821–824.Google Scholar
14.Mannering, J. V., and Johnson, C.B.. 1969. Effect of row spacing on erosion and infiltration. Agronomy J. 61:902–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater: Issues and Problems in Four States. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
16.Nelson, O. E., and Ohlrogge, A.J.. 1957. Differential responses to population pressure by normal and dwarf lines of maize. Science 125:1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Pendleton, J. W., and Seif, R.D.. 1962. Role of height in corn competition. Crop Science 2:154–156.Google Scholar
18.Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M.R., and Stritzke, J.F.. 1965. Inter-relations of row spacings, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Robinson, R. G., Johnson, F.K., and Soine, O.C.. 1967. The sunflower crop in Minnesota. Bull. 299. Minnesota Agric. Extension, St. Paul.Google Scholar
20.Schmidt, K. 1987. United States Sunflower Crop Quality Report. National Sunflower Association, Bismarck, North Dakota.Google Scholar
21.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1982. Agricultural Statistics. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
22.Zuber, M. S., and Kang, M.S.. 1978. Corn lodging slowed by sturdier stalks. Crops and Soils 30:13–15.Google Scholar