Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:23:04.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Soybean (Glycine max) Row Spacing on Pitted Morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Otis W. Howe III  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Otis W. Howe III
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72703
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interference and seed production potential of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLA) with conventional-row (1 m) and narrow-row (20 cm) ‘Hill’ soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] was studied for 2 yr. Pitted morningglory densities were 3.3, 10, 20, and 40 plants/m2 while soybean densities were 23 and 50 plants/m2 in conventional and narrow rows, respectively. Pitted morningglory interfered with soybean growth earlier in conventional-row soybeans than in narrow-row soybeans due to its rapid increase in leaf area index (LAI) and biomass from 4 to 8 weeks after emergence. Soybeans were competitive with pitted morningglory until the soybean reproductive stage began at 7 weeks after emergence. Pitted morningglory reduced soybean yields 17% more in a dry year than in a wet year. Yield of narrow-row soybeans was equal or greater than yield of conventional-row soybeans at all pitted morningglory densities. Conventional-row soybean yields were reduced an average of 42 and 81% at pitted morningglory densities of 3.3 and 40/m2, respectively, but yield of narrow-row soybeans was reduced only 6 and 62% at equivalent densities. Pitted morningglory grown without soybean interference produced an average of 52.3 million seeds/ha. Total seed production of pitted morningglory growing in soybeans increased as pitted morningglory density increased and was greater in conventional rows than in narrow rows. Narrow rows reduced total seed production an average of 90 and 68% at pitted morningglory densities of 3.3 and 40/m2, respectively.

Keywords

Competitionplant growth and developmentweed seed productionIPOLA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , March 1987 , pp. 185 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the 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

1. Barrentine, W. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1977. Competition, threshold levels, and control of cocklebur in soybeans. Miss. Agric. and For. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 83. 27 pp.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and Amiben. Weeds 12:109–112.Google Scholar
3. Caviness, C. E. and Johnson, D. L. 1972. Drilled and conventional row width soybean culture. Arkansas Farm Res. 21(3):3.Google Scholar
4. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Variations in seed production and the response to pests of morningglory (Ipomoea) species and smallflower morningglory (Jacquemontia tamnifolia). Weed Sci. 30:187–190.Google Scholar
5. Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1978. Germination and viability of weed seeds after 2.5 years in a 50-year buried seed study. Weed Sci. 26:230–239.Google Scholar
6. Elmore, C. D., Wiseman, J. B., and McDaniel, S. 1982. Morningglory survey of cotton and soybean fields in the Mississippi Delta. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:319–328.Google Scholar
7. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gomes, L. F., Chandler, J. M., and Vaughan, C. E. 1978. Aspects of germination, emergence, and seed production of three Ipomoea taxa. Weed Sci. 26:245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Murdock, E. C., Banks, P. A., and Toler, J. E. 1986. Shade development effects on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 34:711–717.Google Scholar
10. Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
11. Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybeans. I. Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 24:482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta alba or var. robusta purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacing, cultivation, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 12:285–289.Google Scholar
14. Sanders, J. L. and Brown, D. A. 1978. A new fiber optic technique for measuring root growth of soybeans under field conditions. Agron. J. 70:1073–1076.Google Scholar
15. Scott, H. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybean. II. Development and distribution of root systems. Weed Sci. 24:454–460.Google Scholar
16. Shibles, R. M. and Weber, C. R. 1966. Interception of solar radiation and dry matter production by various soybean planting patterns. Crop Sci. 6:55–59.Google Scholar
17. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.Google Scholar
18. Wax, L. M., Nave, N. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide row soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:73–78.Google Scholar
19. Wilson, H. P. and Cole, R. H. 1966. Morningglory competition in soybeans. Weeds 14:49–51.Google Scholar
20. Woods, S. J. and Swearingin, M. L. 1977. Influence of simulated early lodging upon soybean seed yield and its components. Agron. J. 69:239–242.Google Scholar