Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:41:36.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late-Season Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Interference in Narrow- and Wide-Row Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel  and
Christy L. Sprague
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2002 at Urbana, IL, to examine the interference potential of common waterhemp that emerged at soybean growth stages VE, V2-V3, V4-V5, R1-R2, and R3-R4 in 19- and 76-cm row soybean. Soybean row width and common waterhemp emergence timing significantly influenced common waterhemp density, biomass, seed production, mortality, and soybean yield loss. Common waterhemp density declined as emergence timings were at later soybean growth stages. This decline happened at earlier growth stages in narrow-row soybean. Significant reductions in common waterhemp biomass and seed production occurred at the V2-V3 and V4-V5 emergence timings for the narrow- and wide-row soybean, respectively. Common waterhemp seed production was more than 23,000 seeds per plant at the VE emergence timing for both soybean row widths. Survival of common waterhemp that emerged after the V4-V5 soybean growth stage was less than 20% in both row widths. Common waterhemp interference reduced soybean seed yield at the VE, V2-V3, and the V4-V5 emergence timings. Row width affected the magnitude of yield reductions at these interference timings, with reductions being less in narrow-row soybean. This research suggests that control measures need to be implemented to common waterhemp plants that emerge before V4-V5 soybean to protect soybean yield and reduce common waterhemp seed production.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer #3 AMATAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 3701RR’Interferenceintegrated weed managementlate-season competition.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 947 - 952
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

Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Board, J. E., Harville, B. G., and Saxton, A. M. 1990. Narrow-row seed-yield enhancement in determinate soybean. Agron. J 82:64–68.Google Scholar
Board, J. E., Kamal, M., and Harville, B. G. 1992. Temporal importance of greater light interception to increase yield in narrow-row soybean. Agron. J 84:575–579.Google Scholar
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
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Coffman, C. B. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 5:76–81.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.Google Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination I: effect of seed burial and germination temperature. Weed Sci. 46:48–52.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci. 50:607–610.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Vanderlip, R. L., and Horak, M. J. 2001. Relative time of redroot pigweed emergence affects dry matter partitioning. Weed Sci. 49:617–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as effected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Moolani, M. K., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., Thompson, H. E., and Benson, G. O. 1993. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service Special Rep. 53.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an aceotlactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Res 37:93–101.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Hager, A. G., Simmons, F. W., and Bollero, G. 2004a. Effects of shading on common waterhemp growth and development. Weed Sci. 51:898–903.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Simmons, F. W. 2004b. Common waterhemp emergence as affected by crop and tillage over five years. Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1997. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci 3:155–181.Google Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. and Johnson, I. R. 1990. Plant and Crop Modeling: A Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology. New York: Academic. 78 p.Google Scholar
Vengris, J. 1963. The effect of time of seeding on growth and development of rough pigweed and yellow foxtail. Weed Sci. 11:48–50.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest: distribution, importance and management. Proc. Iowa Integrated Crop Manag. Conf 7:239–242.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.Google Scholar