Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:54:37.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of Rye Cover Crop and Herbicides on Weeds, Yield, and Net Return in Narrow-Row Transgenic and Conventional Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Krishna N. Reddy*
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kreddy@ars.usda.gov

Abstract

A field study was conducted during 1999, 2000, and 2001 at Stoneville, MS, on a Dundee silty clay loam to determine the impact of a rye cover crop with one or two postemergence (POST) herbicide applications on weed control, yield, and net return in narrow-row glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and conventional soybean systems. Cover crop systems included no–cover crop conventional tillage (CT), no–cover crop no-tillage (NT), and rye NT, all with early POST (EPOST), EPOST followed by late POST (LPOST), and no-herbicide weed management. Weed control and net return among glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and conventional soybean systems were similar. One POST ($111/ha) application of herbicides was more profitable than two POST ($79/ha) applications regardless of soybean cultivar and cover crop system. Rye residue reduced total weed density by 9 and 27% and biomass by 19 and 38% compared with no–cover crop CT and NT, respectively. In the rye cover crop, input costs were higher because of the additional cost of seed, planting, and rye desiccation. The additional cost resulted in a lower net return with the rye cover crop ($29/ha) compared with the no–cover crop CT ($84/ha) or NT ($87/ha) system, even though soybean yield in the rye cover crop system was comparable to that from the no–cover crop CT and NT systems. These results showed that because of additional cost, rye cover crop–based soybean production was less profitable compared with existing no–cover crop–based production systems.

Type
Research
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

Anonymous. 1998. Soybeans 1999 Planning Budgets. Agricultural Economics Report 97. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi State University. 110 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Delta 2001 Planning Budgets. Agricultural Economics Report 120. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi State University. 178 p.Google Scholar
Ateh, C. M. and Doll, J. D. 1996. Spring-planted winter rye (Secale cereale) as a living mulch to control weeds in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 10: 347353.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. P. and Putnam, A. R. 1986. Evidence for allelopathy by residues and aqueous extracts of rye (Secale cereale). Weed Sci. 34: 384390.Google Scholar
Burgos, N. R. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Weed control by spring cover crops and imazethapyr in no-till southern pea (Vigna unguiculata). Weed Technol. 10: 893899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, N. G., Bennett, M. A., Stinner, B. R., Cardina, J., and Regnier, E. E. 1996. Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems. Hortscience 31: 410413.Google Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center. 2001. West Lafayette, IN. Web page: www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CTIC.html.Google Scholar
Heatherly, L. G., Elmore, C. D., and Spurlock, S. R. 2001. Row width and weed management systems for conventional soybean plantings in the midsouthern USA. Agron. J. 93: 12101220.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Massey, R. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Becker, C. D. 1997. Weed control and economic returns with postemergence herbicides in narrow-row soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 11: 453459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebl, R., Simmons, F. W., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1992. Effect of rye (Secale cereale) mulch on weed control and soil moisture in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 838846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, E. B., Posner, J. L., and Baldock, J. O. 1998. Performance, economics, and adoption of cover crops in Wisconsin cash grain rotations: on-farm trials. Amer. J. Altern. Agric. 13: 211.CrossRefGoogle 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: 431437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. J., Gillespie, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of cover crop mulches on weed emergence, weed biomass, and soybean (Glycine max) development. Weed Technol. 8: 512518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1999. Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate resistant soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 460465.Google Scholar
Nice, G. R. W., 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: 155162.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2001a. Effects of cereal and legume cover crop residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15: 660668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2001b. Glyphosate-resistant soybean as a weed management tool: opportunities and challenges. Weed Biol. Manag. 1: 193202.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2002. Weed control and economic comparisons in soybean planting systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 21: 2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14: 204211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainju, U. M. and Singh, B. P. 1997. Winter cover crops for sustainable agricultural systems: influence on soil properties, water quality, and crop yields. Hortscience 32: 2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. Software Version 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1996. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 475479.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39: 195199.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14: 140149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varco, J. J., Spurlock, S. R., and Sanabria-Garro, O. R. 1999. Profitability and nitrogen rate optimization associated with winter cover management in no-tillage cotton. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 9195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16: 462465.Google Scholar
Wiesbrook, M. L., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Comparison of weed management systems in narrow-row, glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15: 122128.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Worsham, A. D., and York, A. C. 1996. Cover crops for herbicide replacement in no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10: 815821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar