Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:31:20.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Seeding Rate of Drilled Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max) on Seed Yield and Gross Profit Margin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready®) soybean is widely grown to provide broad-spectrum weed control following sequential applications of glyphosate. Studies were conducted during 1998 and 1999 at Keiser, AR, and in 1999 at Pine Tree, AR, to examine the effect of glyphosate-resistant soybean populations on the number of glyphosate applications needed to maintain 90% or greater control of all weed species and on the gross profit margin from weed management. Soybean was seeded in 19-cm rows at 12 rates ranging from 185,000 to 1,482,000 seeds/ha. Each seeding rate received a single application of 0.56 and 1.12 kg ai/ha glyphosate once weeds were 5 to 7 cm tall, followed by repeat applications when control of any species fell below 90%. Soybean yield and gross profit margin at Keiser were similar both years, and a quadratic curve best described the relationship between seed yield and seeding rate, with maximum predicted and observed yield at 988,000 seeds/ha. Soybean seeding rate affected light interception by soybean and the number of glyphosate applications needed to maintain 90% control of all species. By the later stages of vegetative development, soybean at Pine Tree achieved ≥95% light interception, maximizing yield at all seeding rates. Late-season light interception at Keiser ranged from 88 to 99%, causing soybean yield to vary by seeding rate. Three applications of 0.56 kg/ha glyphosate were needed at seeding rates of 185,000 and 247,000 seeds/ha, whereas higher seeding rates sometimes required only a single application for season-long weed control. Application and herbicide costs were offset by reduced seeding costs; thus, predicted gross profit margin from weed management was optimized at the lowest seeding rate of 185,000 seeds/ha.

Keywords

Glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Delta King 5961 RR’Economic analysislight interceptionphotosynthetically active radiationDigitaria sanguinalisEchinochloa crus-gallEuphorbia maculataIpomoea lacunosaSesbania exaltataDIGSAECHCGEUPMAIPOLASEBEXDAE, days after emergenceLAI, leaf area indexPAR, photosynthetically active radiation
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 284 - 292
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

Ablett, G. R., Beversdorf, W. D., and Dirks, V. A. 1991. Row width and seeding rate performance of indeterminate, semideterminate, and determinate soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 391–395.Google Scholar
Alessi, J. and Power, J. F. 1982. Effects of plant and row spacing on dryland soybean yield and water-use-efficiency. Agron. J. 74: 851–854.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Arkansas Agricultural Statistics. USDA and Univ. Arkansas Coop. Ext. Serv., MP 409. 60 p.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. C., Shaw, D. R., and Medlin, C. R. 1998. Roundup Ready® programs versus conventional programs: efficacy, varietal performance, and economics. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 272–273.Google Scholar
Bacanamwo, M. and Purcell, L. C. 1999. Soybean dry matter and N accumulation responses to flooding stress, N sources and hypoxia. J. Exp. Bot. 50: 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Vories, E. D. 2000. Optimizing soybean plant population for a short-season production system in the Southern USA. Crop Sci. 40: 757–764.Google Scholar
Bello, I. A., Owen, M.D.K., and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 1995. Effect of shade on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth, seed production, and dormancy. Weed Technol. 9: 452–455.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Harville, B. G. 1993. Soybean yield component responses to a light interception gradient during the reproductive period. Crop Sci. 33: 772–777.CrossRefGoogle 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
Board, J. E., Zhang, W., and Harville, B. G. 1996. Yield rankings for soybean cultivars grown in narrow and wide rows with late planting dates. Agron. J. 88: 240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and ambien. Weeds. 12: 109–112.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects of seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39: 185–194.Google Scholar
Caviness, C. E. and Johnson, D. L. 1972. Drilled and conventional row width soybean culture. Arkansas Farm Res. 21 (3): 3.Google Scholar
Delannay, X., Bauman, T. T., Beighley, D. H., et al. 1995. Yield evaluation of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line after treatment with glyphosate. Crop Sci. 35: 1461–1467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Fjell, K. L., Gordon, J.P.W.G., Marsh, B. H., Maddux, L. D., Martin, V. L., and Duncan, S. R. 1995. Row spacing and seeding rates for soybean in low and high yielding environments. J. Prod. Agric. 8: 215–222.Google Scholar
Elmore, R. W. 1998. Soybean cultivar responses to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J. Prod. Agric. 11: 326–331.Google Scholar
Guy, S. O. and Oplinger, E. S. 1989. Soybean cultivar performance as influenced by tillage system and seed treatment. J. Prod. Agric. 2: 57–62.Google Scholar
Kendig, J. A., Barham, R. L., Ezell, P. M., and Swims, P. A. 1998. Pre-post versus total post weed competition issues. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 1–2.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Weed control using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 431–437.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1999. Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate resistant soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 460–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, L. R., Taylor, S. E., and Gander, J. R. 1996. Influence of application timing and rate of glyphosate on weed control in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:57.Google Scholar
Oplinger, E. S. and Philbrook, B. D. 1992. Soybean planting date, row width, and seeding rate response in three tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric. 5: 94–99.Google Scholar
Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robust alba or var. robusta purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27: 655–674.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Weed Technol. 14: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. J., Gedhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds. 12: 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. K., Pendergrass, R., and Hayes, R. M. 1999. Economic analysis of alternative herbicide regimes on Roundup Ready soybeans. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 449–454.Google Scholar
Shibles, R. M. and Weber, C. R. 1965. Leaf area, solar radiation interception and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Sci. 5: 575–577.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, C. C. and Grabau, L. J. 1997. Planting dates for early-maturing soybean cultivars. Agron. J. 89: 449–453.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Max, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafxiger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3: 155–181.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. M. 1980. Soybean growth and yield as affected by row spacing and by seasonal water supply. Agron. J. 72: 543–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H. M., Mason, W. K., Bennie, A.T.P., and Rowse, H. R. 1982. Responses of soybean 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. Field Crops Res. 5: 1–14.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M., Nave, N. R., and Cooper, R. L. 1977. Weed control in narrow and wide row soybeans. Weed Sci. 16: 462–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weeds. 16: 462–465.Google Scholar
Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M., and Byth, D. E. 1966. Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58: 99–102.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 586–593.Google Scholar
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar