Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T11:26:32.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of Soybean (Glycine max) – Weed Interference from Large and Small Plots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Michael G. Patterson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Glenn Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils
John A. McGuire
Affiliation:
Auburn Univ., AL

Abstract

Soybean field experiments were conducted to compare weed interference data obtained from small 2.7-m2 plots to that obtained from large 11-m2 plots. Soybean row spacings of 15, 30, 45, and 90 cm were used. Sicklepod, common cocklebur, and soybean biomass as dry matter were harvested from small plots 10 weeks after planting and were compared to weed biomass and soybean seed yield from the large plots. Sicklepod and common cocklebur biomass in small plots increased and soybean biomass decreased as soybean row spacing increased. Soybean biomass was not affected by row spacing when weeds were not present. Sicklepod and common cocklebur biomass in large plots increased and soybean seed yield decreased as soybean row spacing increased. Soybean seed yield was not affected by row spacing when weeds were not present. Comparison of regression coefficients for paired regression lines indicates that soybean biomass from small plots may be substituted for seed yield from large plots as a measure of sicklepod or common cocklebur interference if both size plots use the same soybean row spacing and are irrigated until harvest.

Type
Special Topics
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

1. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Basnet, B., Mader, E. L., and Nickell, C. D. 1974. Influence of between and within-row spacing on agronomic characteristics of irrigated soybeans. Agron. J. 66:657659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:507513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27:562565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Lehman, W. F. and Lambert, J. W. 1960. Effects of spacing of soybean plants between and within rows on yield and its components. Agron. J. 52:8486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Johnson, W. C. III and Coble, H. D. 1981. A new method to determine weed competition. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:102.Google Scholar
7. Probst, A. H. 1945. Influence of spacing on yield and other characters in soybeans. Agron. J. 37:549555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Research Report. 1986. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:151.Google Scholar
9. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. Page 319. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
10. Stoller, , et al. 1988. Weed interference in soybeans. Reviews of Weed Science. Vol. 3. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Google Scholar
11. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., Hauser, Ellis, Isenhour, D. J., Todd, J. W., and Buchanan, G. A. 1984. Effects of insecticide, weed-free period, and row spacing on soybean (Glycine max) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) growth. Weed Sci. 32:702706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed Crop Competition: A Review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 195 pp.Google Scholar