Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T09:59:54.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of soybean (Glycine max) genotypes for weed competitiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Alvin J. Bussan ,
Orvin C. Burnside ,
James H. Orf ,
Eric A. Ristau  and
Klaus J. Puettmann
Orvin C. Burnside
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
James H. Orf
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Eric A. Ristau
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Klaus J. Puettmann
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the first of 2 field studies, weed biomass and soybean seed yield were used to evaluate 16 soybean genotypes for competitive ability against 12 weed species at Rosemount, MN, in 1992 and 1993. The yield and ranking of soybean genotypes often varied with the weed species. Grass weed species reduced yields the most, and small-seeded broadleaf weeds reduced yields the least across years. ‘Parker’ was highly competitive, as it suppressed weed biomass and produced high soybean yield. ‘Kato,’ ‘Kasota,’ ‘Dawson,’ and ‘Glenwood’ minimized weed biomass and maintained soybean yield while in competition with grass weeds but yielded poorly relative to other soybean genotypes in weed-free conditions. ‘Lambert’ produced high soybean yield in weed-free conditions, but yield dropped markedly when in competition with grass weeds. ‘Grande,’ ‘Heifeng 25,’ and ‘Norman’ soybeans were poor competitive genotypes in weedy situations and low yielding in weed-free conditions. A 2nd field study conducted at Rosemount and St. Paul, MN, during 1993 evaluated 16 soybean genotypes under 4 levels and durations of weed pressure for weed competitiveness. Parker, ‘Sturdy,’ and M89-794 were most competitive in suppressing weed biomass and producing high yields. Lambert yielded fairly well but allowed high weed biomass. M89-1743, M89-1006, ‘Archer,’ and ‘Ozzie’ yielded poorly and did not sup press weed biomass production. No relationship was found between weed competitiveness and soybean canopy area, height, and volume measured 30–45 d after planting (DAP).

Keywords

Aggresivitycompetitioncrop interferencegenotype response to weedsweed suppressionweed toleranceABUTHAMAREAMBELCHEALECHCGPOLAVSETFASETLUSETVISINARSOLPTXANSTSoybeanGlycine max (L.) Merr.
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 31 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Burnside, O. C. 1972. Tolerance of soybean cultivars to weed competition and herbicides. Weed Sci. 20: 294–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27: 562–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J. 1995. Selection for weed competitiveness among soybean genotypes. M.S. thesis. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 108 p.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 7: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, M. B. and Forcella, F. 1993. Crop tolerance to weeds. in Callaway, M. B. and Francis, C. A., eds. Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 100–131.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1978. Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 26: 556–559.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egley, G. H. 1990. High temperature effects on germination and su rvival of weed seeds in soil. Weed Sci. 38: 429–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Primary strategies in the established phase. in Grime, J. P., ed. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 7–25.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 5: 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, J. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambs quarters (Chenopodium album) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrson, S. K., Williams, C. S., and Wax, L. M. 1985. Interference and control of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33: 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and Wagner, C. R. 1994. Using estimates of weed pressure to establish crop yield loss equations. Weed Technol. 8: 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, W. T. and Bauman, T. T. 1989. Interference between soybeans (Glycine max) and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) under Indiana field conditions. Weed Sci. 37: 753–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1990. Herbicide X annual fertility programs influence on creeping bentgrass performance. Agron. J. 82: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31: 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lentner, M. M. and Bishop, T. 1986. In Lentner, M. M. and Bishop, T., eds. Experimental Design and Analysis. Blacksburg, VA: Valley Book, pp. 365–371.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36: 770–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orwick, P. L. and Schrieber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta alba or var. robusta puprurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27: 665–674.Google Scholar
Quakenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1984. Effect of soybean (Glycine max) interference on eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 32: 638–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J. 76: 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33: 199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1990. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Acta Oecol. Scand. 58: 3–15.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. and Wedin, D. 1991. Dynamics of nitrogen competition be tween successional grasses. Ecology 72: 1038–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1994. New technologies and approaches for weed management in sustainable agriculture systems. Weed Technol. 8: 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar