Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:18:14.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Alternative Ways to Control Weeds Between Rows in Weeded Check Plots in Corn (Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 269 Agricultural Engineering Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: donaldw@missouri.edu

Abstract

Weeded check plots are an integral part of most weed control experiments. They provide a measure of the maximum crop yield without weed competition in a given site-year environment. The traditional way to create weeded check plots is to hoe and pull weeds by hand in the row and hoe weeds between rows. But erratic heavy rainfall can prevent timely hoeing. The objective of this experiment was to compare faster, less-laborious mechanized ways to control weeds between crop rows as alternatives to hoeing in corn and soybean. Hoeing, the traditional method for controlling weeds between crop rows, was compared with either repeated mowing using a cord-mower or a string-trimmer or shallow tilling with a rototiller between rows. Weeds growing in rows were controlled by hand-pulling and hoeing because the focus of the experiment was on speeding weed control between rows. All four methods for controlling weeds between crop rows were equally effective when measured as either corn or soybean yield, visual rating of weed control, or weed ground cover in two years under contrasting rainfall patterns. Cord-mowing or string-trimming between rows was possible when soil was dry enough to walk upon but too wet to hoe or rototill.

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

Beckett, T. H. and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Volunteer corn (Zea mays) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 36: 159166.Google Scholar
Black, A. L. and Siddoway, F. H. 1977. Winter wheat recropping on dryland as affected by stubble height and nitrogen fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41: 11861190.Google Scholar
Campbell, C. A., Thomas, A. G., Biederbeck, V. O., Mcconkey, B. G., Selles, F., Spurr, D., and Zentner, R. P. 1998. Converting from no-tillage to preseeding tillage: Influence on weeds, spring wheat grain yields and N, and soil quality. Soil Tillage Res. 46: 175185.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional- and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 43: 8187.Google Scholar
Crook, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) competition and time of removal in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 358364.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1998. Estimating relative crop yield loss due to herbicide damage using crop ground cover or rated stunting, with maize and sethoxydim as a case study. Weed Res. 38: 425431.Google Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, F. W. 1992. Shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 40: 6873.Google Scholar
Harris, T. C. and Ritter, R. L. 1987. Giant green foxtail (Setaria viridis var. major) and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomoflorum) competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 35: 663668.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1982. The long-term effects of fertilizer application and three rotations on weed communities in wheat (after 21-22 years at Indian Head, Saskatchewan). Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 741750.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1965. Giant foxtail seeded at various times in corn and soybeans. Weeds. 13: 331334.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybean. Weed Sci. 17: 281283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Dryden, R. D. 1977. Effects of combined applications of triallate or trifluralin with solution nitrogen on wheat, wild oats, and green foxtail. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57: 479484.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2: 398403.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed ecology. In Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 163301.Google Scholar
Rathman, D. P. and Miller, S. D. 1981. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29: 410414.Google Scholar
Sardi, K. 1996. Effects of fertilizer salts on the germination of corn, winter wheat, and their common weed species. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 27: 12271235.Google Scholar
Schimpf, D. J. and Palmbald, I. G. 1980. Germination response of weed seeds to soil nitrate and ammonium with and without simulated overwintering. Weed Sci. 28: 190193.Google Scholar
Sibuga, K. P. and Bandeen, J. D. 1980. Effects of green foxtail and lamb's-quarters interference in field corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 14191425.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. In The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 2nd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co. pp. 232242 and 348-354.Google Scholar
SPSS. 1998. SPSS Base 8.0 User's Guide and SPSS Applications Guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.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). Reviews of Weed Science. 3: 155182.Google Scholar
Williams, C. S. and Hayes, R. M. 1984. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) competition in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 498501.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 39: 217220.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition, A Review. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. pp. 8393.Google Scholar