Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T18:54:46.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Soybean Row Width and Population on Weeds, Crop Yield, and Economic Return

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dana B. Harder ,
Christy L. Sprague  and
Karen A. Renner
Dana B. Harder
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sprague1@msu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to determine the effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, canopy closure, crop yield, and economic return in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Soybean leaf area index (LAI) was greater in 19- and 38-cm, compared with 76-cm rows from 8 to 12 wk after planting in the low, moderate, and high soybean populations. Canopy closure was delayed by 2 wk in the moderate population in 76-cm rows compared with the high population in 19-cm rows. Fewer weeds emerged in 19-cm, compared with 76-cm rows following glyphosate application, and increasing the soybean population within a row width did not influence late-season weed emergence. Weed biomass in the weedy control was greater in the very low soybean population compared with the high soybean population within each row width; however, weed biomass in the weedy control was similar in the high and moderate soybean populations. Soybean yield in the weed-free and 10-cm glyphosate treatment did not differ, and yield was greater in 19-cm rows planted at moderate or high, compared with low populations. There was no difference in weed-free soybean yield at low, moderate, and high populations within 38- and 76-cm rows. Gross margins were usually greater in 19- and 38-cm, compared with 76-cm rows. The gross margin for soybean planted in 19-cm rows was usually greater at moderate or high soybean populations compared with lower populations. In 76-cm rows, the gross margin was greatest at the low and moderate soybean populations. When rainfall or other factors limited soybean yield, increasing the soybean population from approximately 300,000 plants/ha to 445,000 plants/ha in 19-, 38-, and 76-cm rows did not result in quicker canopy closure, reduced weed emergence, or greater soybean yield and gross margins.

Keywords

Glyphosate potassium saltglyphosate-resistant soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., ‘AG2701’Canopy developmentherbicide-resistant cropsrow spacingweed competitionweed emergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 744 - 752
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

Bertram, M. G. and Pedersen, P. 2004. Adjusting management practices using glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivars. Agron. J. 96:462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Burnside, O. C. and Moomaw, R. S. 1977. Control of weeds in narrow-row soybeans. Agron. J. 69:793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. B. and DeFelice, M. S. 1991. Timing of chlorimuron and imazaquin application for weed control in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nygquist, W. E., and Walker, W. N. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, K., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Weed seed return as influenced by the critical weed-free period and row spacing of no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:877–880.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004a. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004b. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18:177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Fjell, D. L., Shroyer, J. P., Gordon, W. B., Marsh, B. H., Maddux, L. D., Martin, V. L., and Duncan, S. R. 1995. Row spacing and seed rates for soybean in low and high yielding environments. J. Prod. Agric. 8:215–222.Google Scholar
Gardner, F. P., Pearce, R. B., and Mitchell, R. L. 1985. Physiology of Crop Plants. Ames, Iowa Iowa State University Press. 31–56.Google Scholar
Kratochvil, R. J., Pearce, J. T., and Harrison, M. R. 2004. Row-spacing and seeding rate effects on glyphosate-resistant soybean for mid-Atlantic production systems. Agron. J. 96:1029–1038.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.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
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1999. Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate-resistant soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 12:460–465.Google Scholar
Nice, G. R., Buehring, N. W., and Shaw, D. R. 2001. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to shading, soybean (Glycine max) row spacing, and population in three management systems. Weed Technol. 15:155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Frederick, J. R. 2002. Reduced seeding rate for glyphosate-resistant, drilled soybean on the southeastern coastal plan. Agron. J. 94:1282–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin. Weed Technol. 15:284–292.Google Scholar
Shibles, R. M. and Weber, C. R. 1965. Leaf area, solar radiation interception and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Sci. 5:575–578.Google Scholar
Shibles, R. M. and Weber, C. R. 1966. Interception of solar radiation and dry matter production by various soybean planting patterns. Crop Sci. 6:55–59.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. M. 1980. Soybean growth as affected by row spacing and by seasonal water supply. Agron. J. 72:543–546.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effects of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M., Nave, W. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide-row soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:73–78.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:169–174.Google Scholar
Young, B. G., Young, J. M., Gonzini, L. C., Hart, S. E., Wax, L. M., and Kapusta, G. 2001. Weed management in narrow- and wide-row glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:112–121.Google Scholar