Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:44:13.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Cereal and Legume Cover Crop Residues on Weeds, Yield, and Net Return in Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Krishna N. Reddy
Krishna N. Reddy*
Affiliation:
Southern Weed Science Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 2-yr field study was conducted during 1998 and 1999 at Stoneville, MS, on a Dundee silt loam to determine weed control, yield, and net return associated with winter cover crops in soybean. Cover crop systems included Italian ryegrass, oat, rye, wheat, hairy vetch, crimson clover, subterranean clover, no-cover crop conventional tillage (CT), and no-cover crop no-tillage (NT), all with standard preemergence (PRE), postemergence (POST), PRE + POST, and no-herbicide weed management. Oat (11.1 Mg/ha) had highest dry biomass compared to all other cover crops (6.0 to 7.6 Mg/ha) at soybean planting. Biomass decreased 9 wk after planting (WAP) compared to the respective biomass at soybean planting in all cover crops. Italian ryegrass and rye biomass decay was slow and about two-thirds of plant residue persisted at 9 WAP. Cover crops had no effect on densities of barnyardgrass, prickly sida, and yellow nutsedge, but altered the density of browntop millet. Total weed biomass was higher in rye, wheat, and subterranean clover than in Italian ryegrass cover crop systems, and higher with the PRE-only vs. POST-only or PRE + POST programs at 10 WAP soybean. Soybean yield decreased in the order of no-cover crop NT ≥ no-cover crop CT ≥ hairy vetch ≥ crimson clover ≥ rye ≥ oat ≥ wheat ≥ subterranean clover > Italian ryegrass. None of the cover crop systems gave soybean yield higher than the no-cover crop CT system in the absence of herbicides. Under a PRE-only program, all cover crop systems had lower yield compared to the no-cover crop CT system. When late-emerged weeds were controlled with POST applications (POST-only or PRE + POST programs), all cover crops, except Italian ryegrass, had no detrimental effect on soybean yields, which were not different from no-cover crop CT plots. In cover crops, input costs were high due to additional cost of seeds, planting, and desiccation. Net return was highest in no-cover crop NT ($105/ha) followed by no-cover crop CT ($76/ha) system. Net returns were negative for all cover crops and losses were highest in crimson clover (−$62/ha) and subterranean clover (−$161/ha).

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGbrowntop millet, Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf # PANRAprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSPyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPEScrimson clover, Trifolium incarnatum L. ‘Dixie’hairy vetch, Vicia villosa RothItalian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. ‘Gulf’oat, Avena sativa L. ‘Bob’rye, Secale cereale L. ‘Elbon’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘DP 3588’subterranean clover, Trifolium subterraneum L. ‘Mount Barker’wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Cocker 9803’Allelopathyconventional tillageherbicideintegrated weed managementmulchnet returnno-tillageweed emergenceweed biomassANOVA, analysis of varianceCT, conventional tillageNT, no-tillagePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting soybean
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 660 - 668
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. 2000. Delta 2001 Planning Budgets. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, Mississippi State University. Agricultural Economics Rep. 120. 178 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. Soybean 1998 Planning Budgets. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, Mississippi State University. Agricultural Economics Rep. 87. 116 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Soybean 1999 Planning Budgets. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, Mississippi State University. Agricultural Economics Rep. 97. 110 p.Google Scholar
Ateh, C. M. and Doll, J. D. 1996. Spring-planted winter rye (Secale cereale) as a living mulch to control weeds in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 10: 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgos, N. R. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Weed control by spring cover crops and imazethapyr in no-till southern pea (Vigna unguiculata). Weed Technol. 10: 893–899.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., DeFelice, M. S., and Helsel, Z. R. 1993. Cover crop management and weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 425–430.Google Scholar
Liebl, R., Simmons, F. W., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1992. Effect of rye (Secale cereale) mulch on weed control and soil moisture in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 838–846.Google Scholar
Mallory, E. B., Posner, J. L., and Baldock, J. O. 1998. Performance, economics, and adoption of cover crops in Wisconsin cash grain rotations: on-farm trials. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 13: 2–11.Google Scholar
Masiunas, J. B., Weston, L. A., and Weller, S. C. 1995. The impact of rye cover crops on weed populations in a tomato cropping system. Weed Sci. 43: 318–323.Google Scholar
Moore, M. J., Gillespie, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of cover crop mulches on weed emergence, weed biomass, and soybean (Glycine max) development. Weed Technol. 8: 512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, W. E. and Hostettler, F. D. 1993. Nonpoint source contamination of the Mississippi River and its tributaries by herbicides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27: 1542–1552.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Locke, M. A., Wagner, S. C., Zablotowicz, R. M., Gaston, L. A., and Smeda, R. J. 1995. Chlorimuron ethyl sorption and desorption kinetics in soils and herbicide-desiccated cover crop residues. J. Agric. Food Chem. 43: 2752–2757.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14: 204–211.Google Scholar
Sainju, U. M. and Singh, B. P. 1997. Winter cover crops for sustainable agricultural systems: influence on soil properties, water quality, and crop yields. HortScience 32: 21–28.Google Scholar
SAS. 1998. Software version 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1996. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 475–479.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39: 195–199.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Daughtry, C. S. T. 1993. Weed suppression by live and desiccated hairy vetch (Vicia villosa). Weed Sci. 41: 207–212.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Mohler, C. L. 1993. Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and rye. Agron. J. 85: 673–680.Google Scholar
Varco, J. J., Spurlock, S. R., and Sanabria-Garro, O. R. 1999. Profitability and nitrogen rate optimization associated with winter cover management in no-tillage cotton. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 91–95.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A. 1990. Cover crop and herbicide influence on row crop seedling establishment in no-tillage culture. Weed Sci. 38: 166–171.Google Scholar
White, R. H. and Worsham, A. D. 1990. Control of legume cover crops in no-till corn (Zea mays) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4: 57–62.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Worsham, A. D., and York, A. C. 1996. Cover crops for herbicide replacement in no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10: 815–821.Google Scholar