Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:31:21.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between-row mowing + in-row band-applied herbicide for weed control in Glycine max

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald
William W. Donald*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 269 Agricultural Engineering Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211; donaldw@missouri.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most farmers now rely on herbicides and, to a lesser extent, cultivation to control weeds in Glycine max in the Midwest. However, the general public is concerned that widely used herbicides will contaminate surface and groundwater. Alternative ways to control weeds in field crops are needed to reduce or prevent herbicide contamination of surface and groundwater. A new between-row-mowing weed management system that consists of band-applied herbicides over crop rows + two or more between-row mowings was tested in G. max over 6 yr in Missouri. Mowing weeds close to the soil surface two or more times between crop rows killed or suppressed annual grass and broadleaf weeds, chiefly Setaria faberi, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Amaranthus spp., if properly timed. Shading by crop canopy closure contributed to weed suppression in this weed management system. G. max yield also could not be distinguished from weed-free check plots and was greater than the weedy check plots. Herbicide use was reduced 50% by banding because only 50% of the field area was sprayed. The between-row-mowing weed management system may have use in environmentally sensitive areas to help reduce soil erosion or water contamination by herbicides.

Keywords

Common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAAmaranthus spp., waterhemp spp.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Morsoy 9137’ and ‘Pioneer 9381’Band applicationcuttingmowingtrimmingdefoliationnonchemical weed controlreduced herbicide rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , August 2000 , pp. 487 - 500
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

Aiken, G. E., Sladden, S. E., and Bransby, D. I. 1995. Cutting height and frequency effects on composition, yield, and quality of a bermudagrass-crabgrass mixture. J. Prod. Agric. 8:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, P. S. and Meyer, S. E. 1998. Ecological aspects of seed dormancy loss. Seed Sci. Res. 8:183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Agricultural Chemical Usage 1998 Field Crops Summary. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economic Research Service. Ag Ch 1 (99). 140 p.Google Scholar
Baker, J. L. and Johnson, H. P. 1983. Evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs from field studies. Pages 281–304 In Bailey, G. W. and Schaller, F. W., eds. Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Beckett, T. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Volunteer corn (Zea mays) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 36:159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonham, C. D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 96–135.Google Scholar
Brock, B. G. 1982. Weed control versus soil erosion control. J. Soil Water Conserv. 37:73–76.Google Scholar
Dabney, S. M. 1998. Cover crop impacts on watershed hydrology. J. Soil Water Conserv. 53:207–213.Google Scholar
Daniel, T. C., Sharpley, A. N., and Lemunyon, J. L. 1998. Agricultural phosphorous and eutrophication: a symposium overview. J. Environ. Qual. 27:251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, K. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24:224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, M. 1978. A comparison of the abilities of colonizers and closed-turf species to establish from seed in artificial swards. J. Ecol. 66:953–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., Tan, C. S., Drury, C. F., Van Wesenbeeck, I. J., and Welacky, T. W. 1995. Atrazine in surface and subsurface runoff as affected by cultural practices. Water Qual. Res. J. Canada 30:513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaynor, J. D. and Van Wesenbeeck, I. J. 1995. Effects of band widths on atrazine, metribuzin, and metolachlor runoff. Weed Technol. 9:107–112.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
Henry, W. T. and Bauman, T. T. 1991. Interference between soybean (Glycine max) and jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) in Indiana. Weed Technol. 5:759–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoshmand, A. R. 1994. Experimental Research Design and Analysis: A Practical Approach for Agricultural and Natural Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p. 15–132.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. A., Kapusta, G., and Mason, D.J.S. 1985. Effect of duration and type of natural weed infestations on soybean yield. Agron. J. 77:725–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kust, C. A. and Smith, R. R. 1969. Interaction of linuron and row spacing for control of yellow foxtail and barnyardgrass in soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, W. F. 1998. Farm Machinery Economic Costs for 1998: Minnesota Estimates with Adjustments for Use in Canada. Staff Paper P98-5, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, p. 16.Google Scholar
Logan, T. J. 1993. Agricultural best management practices for water pollution control: current issues. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46:223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, T. J., Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L., and Overcash, M. R. eds. 1987. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality: Nitrates and Pesticides. Chelsea, MI: Lewis. 292 pp.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. 1991. Effect of date of treatment of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) on soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 5:381–386.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. 10:431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Coble, H. D. 1989. The influence of soil water content on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutchler, C. K. and Greer, J. D. 1984. Reduced tillage for soybeans. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engin. 27:1364–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2:398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pannkuk, C. D., Papendick, R. I., and Saxton, K. E. 1997. Fallow management effects on soil water storage and wheat yields in the pacific northwest. Agron. J. 89:386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelly, J. 1998. Is coastal eutrophication out of control? Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:462a–466a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R. G. 1994. Agricultural Field Experiments: Design and Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 19–76, 205–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plain, R., White, J., and Travlos, J. 1998. 1997 Custom Rates for Farm Services in Missouri. Staff Paper Department of Agricultural Economics University of Missouri, Columbia, p. 8.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 163–301.Google Scholar
Renard, K. G., Laflen, J. M., Foster, G. R., and McCool, D. K. 1994. The revised universal soil loss equation. Pages 105–124 In Lal, R., ed. Soil Erosion Research Methods. 2nd ed. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.Google Scholar
Richards, R. P. and Baker, D. B. 1993. Pesticide concentration patterns in agricultural drainage networks in the Lake Erie Basin. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:13–26.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
Schreiber, M. M. 1965. Effect of date of planting and stage of cutting on seed production of giant foxtail. Weeds 13:60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS. 1998. SPSS Base 8.0 User's Guide and SPSS Applications Guide. Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed Interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–182.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, K. 1987. Seeds and seed banks. New Phytol. 106 (Suppl.): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vengris, J., Hill, E. R., and Field, D. L. 1966. Clipping and regrowth of barnyardgrass. Crop Sci. 6:342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5:674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willard, T. S., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., and Saxton, A. M. 1994. Interference of wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:679–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, J. C., Gantzer, C. J., Anderson, S. H., Alberts, E. E., and Beuselinck, P. R. 1989. Runoff, soil, and dissolved nutrient losses from no-till soybean with winter cover crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:1210–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Corvallis: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University, pp. 83–93.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) interference in soybean (Glycine max) and dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar