Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:29:43.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural weed management practices shorten the critical weed-free period for soybean grown in the Northern Great Plains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2019

Jonathan D. Rosset  and
Robert H. Gulden Open the ORCID record for Robert H. Gulden [Opens in a new window]
Jonathan D. Rosset
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Robert H. Gulden*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Robert H. Gulden, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Manitoba, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] has recently become a popular rotational crop in the Canadian Northern Great Plains where herbicide-resistant (HR) soybean cultivars have been widely adopted. Intense reliance on herbicides has contributed to the development of HR weeds in soybean and other crops. Cultural weed management practices reduce the need for herbicides and lower the selection pressure for HR weed biotypes by improving the competitiveness of the crop. The effects of two row spacings, three target densities, and three cultivars on the critical weed-free period (CWFP) in soybean were evaluated as three separate experiments in southern Manitoba. In the row-spacing experiment, soybean grown in narrow rows shortened the CWFP by up to three soybean developmental stages at site-years with increased weed pressure. In the target density experiment, low-density soybean stands lengthened the CWFP by one soybean developmental stage compared with higher-density soybean stands. The effect of soybean cultivar varied among locations, yet tended to be consistent within location over the 2-yr study, suggesting that competitive ability in these soybean cultivars was linked to edaphic and/or environmental factors. Generally, the cultivar with the shortest days to maturity, which also had the shortest stature, consistently had a longer CWFP. Each of these cultural practices were effective at reducing the need for in-crop herbicide applications.

Keywords

Crop–weed interactioncultivardensityintegrated weed managementrow spacing
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 79 - 91
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Prashant Jha, Iowa State University

References

Arce, GD, Pedersen, P, Hartzler, RG (2009) Soybean seeding rate effects on weed management. Weed Technol 23:17–2217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baenziger, PS, Russell, WK, Graef, GL, Campbell, BT (2006) Improving lives: 50 years of crop breeding, genetics, and cytology (C-1). Crop Sci 46:2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, DA, Ogg, AG, Chevalier, PM (1997) The influence of seeding rate on weed control in small-red lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Sci 45:296–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardella, G (2016) Phosphorus management practices for soybean production in Manitoba. M.Sc thesis. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba. 209 pGoogle Scholar
Batlla, D, Benech-Arnold, RL (2014) Weed seed germination and the light environment: implications for weed management. Weed Biol Manag 14:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Francis, A, Hall, LM (2012) The Biology of canadian weeds. 27. Avena fatua L. (updated). Can J Plant Sci 92:1329–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Hall, LM, Shirriff, SW, Martin, E, Leeson, JY (2019) Triple-resistant kochia [Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.] in Alberta. Can J Plant Sci 99:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R, Anderson, R, Lemerle, D (2007) Cultural weed management. Pages 35–47in Upadhyaya, M, Blackshaw, R, eds. Non-chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford, UK: CAB InternationalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Sandell, LD, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Loux, MM, Bradley, KW, Conley, SP, Stoltenberg, DE, Arriaga, Francisco J, Davis, VM (2016) Management of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in glufosinate-resistant soybean in the Midwest and Mid-South. Weed Technol 30:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, TR, Vieira, BC, Latorre, DO, Werle, R, Kruger, GR (2018) Competitiveness of herbicide-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) with soybean. Weed Sci 66:729–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cober, ER, Morrison, MJ (2011) Short-season soybean genetic improvement evaluated in weed-free and weedy conditions. Crop Sci 51:2582–2588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, T (2016) Fitting threshold models using the SAS® procedures NLIN and NLMIXED. Pages 1–11in SAS Conference Proceedings: Western Users of SAS Software 2016. San Francisco, CA: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Cooper, RL (1971) Influence of early lodging on yield of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Agron J 63:449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, WJ, Cherney, JH (2011) Growth and yield responses of soybean to row spacing and seeding rate. Agron J 103:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruin, JL, Pedersen, P (2008) Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean yield. Agron J 100:704–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egli, DB (2008) Comparison of corn and soybean yields in the United States: historical trends and future prospects. Agron J 100:S-79–S-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyherabide, JJ, Cendoya, MG (2002) Critical periods of weed control in soybean for full field and in-furrow interference. Weed Sci 50:162–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatichin, , Zheng, S-H, Arima, S (2013) Varietal difference in early vegetative growth during seedling stage in soybean. Plant Prod Sci 16:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE, Burmood, DT, Pennington, JS (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci 11:929–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradgley, NS, Creissen, HE, Pearce, H, Howlett, SA, Pearce, BD, Döring, TF, Girling, RD (2017) Weed suppression and tolerance in winter oats. Weed Technol 31:740–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geddes, CM, Gulden, RH (2018) Candidate tools for integrated weed management in soybean at the northern frontier of production. Weed Sci 66:662–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Tracewicz, E, Page, ER, Swanton, CJ (2012) Light quality and the critical period for weed control in soybean. Weed Sci 60:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulden, RH, Warwick, SI, Thomas, AG (2011) The biology of Canadian weeds. 137. Brassica napus L. and B. rapa L. Can J Plant Sci 71:885–886Google Scholar
Hammer, DJ, Stoltenberg, DE, Colquhoun, JB, Conley, SP (2018) Has breeding improved soybean competitiveness with weeds? Weed Sci 66:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, DB, Sprague, CL, Renner, KA (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technol 21:744–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, KN (2013) Slowing weed evolution with integrated weed management. Can J Plant Sci 93:759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: April 9, 2019Google Scholar
Hock, SM, Knezevic, SZ, Martin, AR, Lindquist, JL (2006) Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Sci 54:38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horneburg, B, Seiffert, S, Schmidt, J, Messmer, MM, Wilbois, KP (2017) Weed tolerance in soybean: a direct selection system. Plant Breed 136:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannink, JL, Orf, JH, Jordan, NR, Shaw, RG (2000) Index selection for weed-suppressive ability in soybean. Crop Sci 40:1087–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N (1993) Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol Appl 3:84–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jussaume, RA, Ervin, D (2016) Understanding weed resistance as a wicked problem to improve weed management decisions. Weed Sci 64:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiernan, K, Tao, J, Gibbs, P (2012) Tips and strategies for mixed modeling with SAS/STAT® procedures. Pages 1–18in SAS Global Forum 2012—Statistics and Data Analysis. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Acker, RC Van, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK, Mauromoustakos, A (2019) Effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) establishment time and distance from the crop row on biological and phenological characteristics of the weed: implications on soybean yield. Weed Sci 67:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozak, M, Piepho, HP (2018) What’s normal anyway? Residual plots are more telling than significance tests when checking ANOVA assumptions. J Agron Crop Sci 204:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutcher, HR, Turkington, TK, Clayton, GW, Harker, KN (2013) Response of herbicide-tolerant canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars to four row spacings and three seeding rates in a no-till production system. Can J Plant Sci 93:1229–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, JY, Thomas, AG, Hall, LM, Brenzil, CA, Andrews, T, Brown, KR, Van Acker, RC (2005) Prairie weed surveys of cereal, oilseed and pulse crops from the 1970s to the 2000s. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research and Development Centre. 395 pGoogle Scholar
Légère, A, Schreiber, MM (1989) Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 37:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenssen, AW (2008) Planting date and preplant weed management influence yield, water use, and weed seed production in herbicide-free forage barley. Weed Technol 22:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebert, JA, Ryan, MR (2017) High planting rates improve weed suppression, yield, and profitability in organically-managed, no-till planted soybean. Weed Technol 31:536–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, RC, Stroup, WW, Milliken, GA, Wolfinger, RD, Schabenberger, O (2006) SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 633 pGoogle Scholar
Lund, RE (1975) An approximate test for outliers in linear models. Technometrics 17:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manitoba Agriculture (2017) Growing Season Report. http://tgs.gov.mb.ca/climate/SeasonalReport.aspx. Accessed: November 12, 2017Google Scholar
Martin, SG, Van Acker, RC, Friesen, LF (2001) Critical period of weed control in spring canola. Weed Sci 49:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mierau, A, Johnson, EN, Gulden, RH, Weber, JD, May, WE, Willenborg, CJ (2019) Minimizing competition between glyphosate resistant volunteer canola and glyphosate resistant soybean: impact of soybean planting date and rate. Weed Technol: 1–9. doi: 10.1017/wet.2019.97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, GR, Amiri, F (2011) Critical period of weed control in soybean (Glycine max) as influenced by starter fertilizer. Aust J Crop Sci 5:1350–1355Google Scholar
Morrison, MJ, McLaughlin, NB, Cober, ER, Butler, GM (2006) When is short-season soybean most susceptible to water stress? Can J Plant Sci 86:1327–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, MJ, Voldeng, HD, Cober, ER (1999) Physiological changes from 58 years of genetic improvement of short-season soybean cultivars in Canada. Agron J 91:685CrossRefGoogle 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 15:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, HJ, Brondo, MA, Gonzalez, JT (1968) Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest Artic News Summ Sect C Weed Control 14:159–166Google Scholar
Nordby, DE, Alderks, DL, Nafziger, ED (2007) Competitiveness with weeds of soybean cultivars with different maturity and canopy width characteristics. Weed Technol 21:1082–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Shipe, E (2006) Evaluation of glyphosate-resistant Glycine max genotypes for competitiveness at recommended seeding rates in wide and narrow rows. Crop Prot 25:362–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donovan, JT, Newman, JC, Harker, KN, Blackshaw, RE, Mcandrew, DW (1999) Effect of barley plant density on wild oat interference, shoot biomass and seed yield under zero tillage. Can J Plant Sci 79:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, MDK, Beckie, HJ, Leeson, JY, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE (2015) Integrated pest management and weed management in the United States and Canada. Pest Manag Sci 71:357–376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Place, GT, Reberg-Horton, SC, Carter, TE, Brinton, SR, Smith, AN (2011a) Screening tactics for identifying competitive soybean genotypes. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 42:2654–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, GT, Reberg-Horton, SC, Carter, TE, Smith, AN (2011b) Effects of soybean seed size on weed competition. Agron J 103:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, GT, Reberg-Horton, SC, Dickey, DA, Carter, TE (2011c) Identifying soybean traits of interest for weed competition. Crop Sci 51:2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, GT, Reberg-Horton, SC, Dunphy, JE, Smith, AN (2009) Seeding rate effects on weed control and yield for organic soybean production. Weed Technol 23:497–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puricelli, EC, Faccini, DE, Orioli, GA, Sabbatini, MR (2003) Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) competition in narrow- and wide-row soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:446–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasool, G, Mahajan, G, Yadav, R, Hanif, Z, Chauhan, BS (2017) Row spacing is more important than seeding rate for increasing Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) control and grain yield in soybean (Glycine max). Crop Pasture Sci 68:620–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, DP, Miller, SD (1981) Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 29:410–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlick, C, Duddu, HSN, Syrovy, LD, Willenborg, CJ, Johnson, EN, Shirtliffe, SJ (2017a) Effect of seeding rate on dose response of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) to fluthiacet-methyl. Weed Sci 65:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlick, C, Syrovy, LD, Duddu, HSN, Benaragama, D, Johnson, EN, Willenborg, CJ, Shirtliffe, SJ (2017b) Developing an integrated weed management system for herbicide-resistant weeds using lentil (Lens culinaris) as a model crop. Weed Sci 65:778–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2017) The NLMixed procedure. Pages 6723–6837in SAS/STAT 14.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Scott, HD, Oliver, LR (1976) Field competition between tall morningglory and soybean. II. Development and distribution of root systems. Weed Sci 24:454–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Canada (2017) Table 004-0213, Census of Agriculture, Hay and Field Crops. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca.uml.idm.oclc.org/cansim/a47. Accessed: June 23, 2017Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL (2004) Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide- row soybean. Weed Sci 18:947–952Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, RE, Van Eerd, LL, Vyn, RJ, Sikkema, PH (2011) Weed control, environmental impact, and economics of weed management strategies in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 25:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stougaard, RN, Xue, Q (2004) Spring wheat seed size and seeding rate effects on yield loss due to wild oat (Avena fatua) interference. Weed Sci 52:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Mahoney, KJ, Chandler, K, Gulden, RH (2008) Integrated weed management: knowledge-based weed management systems. Weed Sci 56:168–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H, Mason, W, Bennie, A, Rowse, H (1982) Responses of soybeans to two row spacings and two soil water levels. I. An analysis of biomass accumulation, canopy development, solar radiation interception and components of seed yield. F Crop Res 5:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjørve, KMC, Tjørve, E (2017) The use of Gompertz models in growth analyses, and new Gompertz-model approach: an addition to the Unified-Richards family. PLoS ONE 12:1–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Acker, RC, Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1993a) The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, RC, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1993b) Influence of Interference from a mixed weed species stand on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) growth. Can J Plant Sci 73:1293–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, MJ (2001) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703–705Google Scholar
Weiner, J, Freckleton, RP (2010) Constant final yield. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J, Griepentrog, H-W, Kristensen, L (2001) Suppression of weeds by spring wheat Triticum aestivum increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. J Appl Ecol 38:784–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (1988) The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–156in Altieri, MA, Liebman, M, eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar