Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-v4w92 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-21T18:16:49.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Response to Shading, Soybean (Glycine max) Row Spacing, and Population in Three Management Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn R. W. Nice ,
Normie W. Buehring  and
David R. Shaw
Glenn R. W. Nice
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Normie W. Buehring*
Affiliation:
North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, Verona, MS 38879
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: buehring@ra.msstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at the Northeast Mississippi Research and Extension Center to investigate the effects of row spacing (76, 38, and 19 cm), soybean population, and three weed management systems on sicklepod growth and seed production. The cultivars ‘Hartz 5088RR’ (glyphosate-tolerant) and ‘Hutcheson’ (a conventional cultivar) were used in two separate studies. The average soybean populations over cultivars and year were 245,000 (low), 481,000 (medium), and 676,000 (high) plants/ha. The three weed management systems were: no (untreated), one, and two herbicide applications. In the glyphosate-tolerant system, one or two postemergence (POST) applications of glyphosate were used, whereas in the conventional system, flumetsulam plus metolachlor preemergence was used alone (single) or followed by chlorimuron POST (sequential). Reducing soybean row spacing from 76 cm, coupled with increased soybean population, reduced sicklepod population up to 80%. Except for Hutcheson in 1998, reducing row spacing and increasing soybean population also reduced sicklepod seed production in both the untreated and the single applications. A single herbicide application reduced sicklepod population up to 68% from untreated plots. However, except for Hartz 5088RR in 1998, the sequential application did not further reduce sicklepod population. In a shading study, partial shading increased sicklepod height but reduced dry weight. However, as shading level increased from 65 to 80 and 95%, height was also reduced.

Keywords

Chlorimuronflumetsulamglyphosatemetolachlorsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barnaby #3 CASOBsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrGlyphosate-tolerant soybeansequential herbicide applicationsseed productionMG, maturity groupPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 155 - 162
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Adcock, T. E. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Effects of preemergence herbicides on the competitiveness of selected weeds. Weed Sci. 39: 54–56.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Roundup Ultra, mid-south Roundup Ultra use & application guide. Monsanto Bull. 164-98-01. p. 9.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Harville, B. G. 1996. Growth dynamics during the vegetative period affects yield of narrow-row, late-planted soybean. Agron. J. 88: 567–572.Google Scholar
Bozsa, R. C., Oliver, L. R., and Driver, T. L. 1989. Intraspecific and interspecific sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference. Weed Sci. 37: 670–673.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27: 562–565.Google Scholar
Creel, J.M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16: 396–400.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 307–310.Google Scholar
Isaacs, M. A., Murdock, E. C., Toler, J. E., and Wallace, S. U. 1989. Effects of late-season herbicide applications on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed production and viability. Weed Sci. 37: 761–765.Google Scholar
Jones, R. E. Jr. and Walker, R. H. 1993. Effect of interspecific interference, light intensity, and soil moisture on soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) water uptake. Weed Sci. 41: 534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E. Jr., Walker, R. H., and Wehtje, G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) sap flow in interspecific competition. Weed Sci. 45: 409–413.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Influence of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and soybean (Glycine max) planting date on weed interference. Weed Sci. 42: 61–65.Google Scholar
Legere, 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
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36: 770–774.Google Scholar
Newsom, L. J. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Influence of cultivation timing on weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 8: 760–765.Google Scholar
Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of harvest-aid herbicides on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 6: 985–989.Google Scholar
Retzinger, E. J. Jr. 1984. Growth and development of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) selections. Weed Sci. 32: 608–611.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Coats, G. E. 1988. Herbicides and cultivation for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2: 187–190.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Bruff, S. A., and Smith, C. A. 1991a. Effect of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on chemical control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Technol. 5: 286–290.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Wixson, M. B., and Smith, C. A. 1991b. Effect of imazaquin and chlorimuron plus metribuzin on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 206–210.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Rankins, A. Jr., and Ruscoe, J. T. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) interference with soybean (Glycine max) cultivars following herbicide treatments. Weed Technol. 11: 510–514.Google Scholar
Smith, J. E. and Jordan, P. W. 1993. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) shoot structure as affected by soybean (Glycine max) interference. Weed Sci. 41: 75–81.Google Scholar
Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis): geographic distribution, germination, and emergence. Weed Sci. 28: 68–70.Google Scholar
Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20: 379–384.Google Scholar
Walker, D. L., Patterson, M. G., Hauser, E., 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: 702–706.Google Scholar
Watts, J. R., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. S., and Toler, J. E. 1997. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with single and sequential herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 11: 157–163.Google Scholar
Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M., and Byth, D. E. 1966. Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, R., Burton, J. W., and Kilen, T. C. 1993. Soybean growth and light interception: response to differing leaf and stem morphology. Crop Sci. 33: 520–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 169–174.Google Scholar