Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:52:01.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Soybean Seeding Rate Be Used as an Integrated Component of Herbicide Resistance Management?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan P. DeWerff ,
Shawn P. Conley ,
Jed B. Colquhoun  and
Vince M. Davis
Ryan P. DeWerff
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Shawn P. Conley
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Jed B. Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Vince M. Davis*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: vmdavis@wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increased soybean seed cost has generated recent interest in reducing seeding rates to improve economic returns. However, low seeding rates result in reduced established plant stands with slower canopy development, and canopy development is an important element of integrated weed management (IWM). Field studies were conducted in 2012 and 2013 in Wisconsin to determine the trade-off between reduced seeding rates and PRE residual herbicide use for POST herbicide exposure. Soybean was planted in mid May in 38-cm-wide rows at five seeding rates ranging from 148,200 to 469,300 seeds ha−1. A PRE application of metolachlor plus fomesafen was made to half of the plots. One of two POST herbicide programs were sprayed at the V4 soybean growth stage to determine whether blending herbicide-resistant (HR) and non-HR soybean cultivars could be a practical alternative to reduce soybean seed expenses while maintaining the potential benefit of weed suppression before the POST herbicide application. An increase in seeding rate did not reduce the density or size of weeds exposed to the POST herbicide, and furthermore, end-of-season weed density and biomass were not influenced. In contrast, the use of a PRE herbicide reduced total weed density and biomass before POST application by 93 and 95%, respectively, in both years. In 2012, the season was dry early and harvest stands of 161,100 and 264,100 plants ha−1 produced 95% of the maximum yield for the PRE and no-PRE treatments, respectively. The difference was not repeated in 2013 with adequate early season rainfall. In conclusion, PRE herbicide use produced maximum yield with fewer plants per hectare by limiting early season weed competition and reduced weeds exposed to POST herbicide application thus contributing to HR management (HRM). In contrast, higher plant densities generated within the seeding rate range of this study did little to improve IWM or HRM.

Keywords

Cloransulamfluazifopfomesafenglyphosateimazamoxmetolachlorsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Herbicide-resistant cropsintegrated weed managementPRE residual herbicidesweed competition
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 625 - 636
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 (2013) Bayer CropScience and MS Technologies Balance GT Soybean to Usher in Next Era of Performance and Weed Control. http://www.bayercropscience.us/news/press-releases/2013/bayer-cropscience-ms-technologies-balance. Accessed February 26, 2014Google Scholar
Arce, GD, Pedersen, P, Hartzler, RG (2009) Soybean seeding rate effects on weed management. Weed Technol. 23:17–22 Google Scholar
Board, JE (2000) Light interception efficiency and light quality affect yield compensation of soybean at low plant populations. Crop Sci. 40:1285–1294 Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P., Cox, DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Method. 26:211–252 Google Scholar
Carpenter, AC, Board, JE (1997a) Branch yield components controlling soybean yield stability across plant populations. Crop Sci. 37:885–891 Google Scholar
Carpenter, AC, Board, JE (1997b) Growth dynamic factors controlling soybean yield stability across plant populations. Crop Sci. 37:1520–1526 Google Scholar
Conley, SP, Abendroth, L, Elmore, R, Christmas, EP, Zarnstorff, M (2008) Soybean seed yield and composition response to stand reduction at vegetative and reproductive stages. Agron J. 100:1666–1669 Google Scholar
Conley, SP, Gaska, JM (2010) Factors to Consider if Using Lower Soybean Seeding Rates in 2010, University of Wisconsin-Extension, http://www.coolbean.info. Accessed November 12, 2012Google Scholar
Cox, WJ, Cherney, JH (2011) Growth and yield responses of soybean to row spacing and seeding rate. Agron J. 103:123–128 Google Scholar
Davis, VM (2010) Soybean Seeding Rates for 2010, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL. http://www.bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu. Accessed November 6, 2012Google Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2008a) Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean yield. Agron J. 100:704–710 Google Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2008b) Soybean seed yield response to planting date and seeding rate in the upper Midwest. Agron J. 100:696–703 Google Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2009) New and old soybean cultivar responses to plant density and intercepted light. Crop Sci. 49:2225–2232 Google Scholar
Dow AgroSciences (2014) Enlist Technology Advances in USDA Regulatory Process in 2014. http://www.enlist.com/pdf/DEIS%20Trade%20010314_Final.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2014Google Scholar
Edwards, JT, Purcell, LC, Karcher, DE (2005) Soybean yield and biomass responses to increasing plant population among diverse maturity groups, II: light interception and utilization. Crop Sci. 45:1778–1785 Google Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL (2002) Benefits of soil-applied herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:541–547 Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Stages of soybean development. Ames, IA Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. 80. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Green-Tracewicz, E, Page, ER, Swanton, CJ (2011) Shade avoidance in soybean reduces branching and increases plant-to-plant variability in biomass and yield per plant. Weed Sci. 59:43–49 Google Scholar
Halford, C, Hamill, AS, Zhang, J, Doucet, C (2001) Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:737–744 Google Scholar
Harder, DB, Sprague, CL, Renner, KA (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technol. 21:744–752 Google Scholar
Harker, KN, O'Donovan, JT, Blackshaw, RE, Beckie, HJ, Mallory-Smith, C, Maxwell, BD (2012) Our view. Weed Sci. 60:143–144 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2014) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx. Accessed February 6, 2014Google Scholar
Karcher, DE, Richardson, MD (2005) Batch analysis of digital images to evaluate turfgrass characteristics. Crop Sci. 45:1536–1539 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Mainz, M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:666–673 Google Scholar
Lee, CD, Egli, DB, TeKrony, DM (2008) Soybean response to plant population at early and late planting dates in the mid-south. Agron J. 100:971–976 Google Scholar
Leibman, M, Mohler, CL, Staver, CP (2001) Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. New York Cambridge University Press. 532 pGoogle Scholar
Monsanto Co (2014) Roundup Ready 2 Xtend Soybeans. http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/roundup-ready-2-xtend-soybeans.aspx. Accessed February 26, 2014Google Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JT, Maxwell, BD, Ryan, MR, Smith, RG (2012) Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. Bioscience. 62:75–84 Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D, Boerboom, CM (2000) Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42 Google Scholar
Nice, GRW, Buehring, NW, Shaw, DR (2001) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to shading, soybean (Glycine max) row spacing, and population in three management systems. Weed Technol. 15:155–162 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2005) Optimizing glyphosate timing in a mixed stand of glyphosate-resistant/conventional, drill-seeded soybean. Weed Technol. 19:942–946 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliver, LR (2001) Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin. Weed Technol. 15:284–292 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci. 60(sp1):31–62 Google Scholar
Onofri, A, Carbonell, EA, Piepho, HP, Mortimer, AM, Cousens, RD (2010) Current statistical issues in Weed Research . Weed Res. 50:5–24 Google Scholar
Pedersen, P (2009) Optimum Plant Population in Iowa, Iowa State University. http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soybean/documents/OptimumPlantPop.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2012Google Scholar
Purcell, LC (2000) Soybean canopy coverage and light interception methods using digital imagery. Crop Sci. 40:834–837 Google Scholar
Robinson, AP, Conley, SP (2007) Plant Populations and Seeding Rates for Soybeans. West Lafayette, IN Purdue University. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/ay/ay-217-w.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2012Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group. Cary, NC SAS Institute Google Scholar
Suhre, JJ (2012) Genetic Gain by Management Interaction in Soybean: Seeding Rate Effect. . Urbana-Champaign, IL University of Illinois. 50 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-ERS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2013) Commodity Costs and Returns. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx. Accessed February 6, 2014Google Scholar
Vencill, WK, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Soteres, JK, Mallory-Smith, C, Burgos, NR, Johnson, WG, McClelland, MR (2012) Herbicide resistance: toward an understanding of resistance development and the impact of herbicide-resistant crops. Weed Sci. 60(sp1):2–30 Google Scholar