Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:56:29.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soybean and Weed Yields as Affected by Irrigation, Row Spacing, Tillage, and Amiben

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

O. C. Burnside  and
W. L. Colville
O. C. Burnside
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
W. L. Colville
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Get access

Abstract

Ford soybean yields and weed yields were studied under combinations of tillage treatments, 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (amiben) applications, hand weedings, and row spacings on irrigated and non-irrigated locations in Nebraska during 1961 and 1962. Soybean yields increased and weed yields decreased with tillage, amiben applications, hand weedings, and narrow-row spacing of soybeans. Combinations of these weed control treatments gave more dependable results than any one alone. Each 86 lb/A of weeds present produced an average soybean yield reduction of 1 bu/A. Advantages of growing soybeans with amiben applications in 10-inch rows as compared to 40-inch rows are: (a) an average soybean yield increase of 39%, (b) elimination or reduction of tillage (c) a 50 to 75% reduction in amiben application rate, and (d) little or no soybean injury from the lower rates of amiben required in the 10-inch rows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 109 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © 1964 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. Burnside, O. C., and Lipke, W. G. 1960. Pre-emergence weed control in soybeans. NCWCC Proc. 17:89.Google Scholar
2. Hartwig, Edgar E. 1957. Row width and rates of planting in the southern states. Soybean Digest 17:13–14, 16. Google Scholar
3. Hay, J. R. 1961. Pre-emergence weed control in soybeans with mixtures of two herbicides. Weeds 9:117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Leffel, R. C., and Barber, G. W. Jr. 1961. Row widths and seeding rates in soybeans. Maryland Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull. 470. 18 p.Google Scholar
5. Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of the rotary hoe for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Pendleton, J. F., and Slife, F. W. 1953. Hill planting vs. drilling of soybeans. Agron. J. 45:451–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Pendleton, J. W., Bernard, R. L., and Hadley, H. H. 1960. Grow soybeans in narrow rows. Soybean News 11:1–3.Google Scholar
8. Peters, Elroy J., Klingman, Dayton L., and Larson, Russel E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Peters, Elroy J., Davis, F. S., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1959. Interrelations of cultivations, herbicides, and methods of application for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 9:639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Somerhalder, B. R., and Schleusener, P. E. 1960. Irrigation can increase soybean production. Nebraska Exp. Sta. Quar. 7(1):16–17.Google Scholar
11. Staniforth, David W., and Weber, Charles R. 1956. Effects of annual weeds on the growth and yield of soybeans. Agron. J. 48:467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Weber, Charles R., and Staniforth, David W. 1957. Competitive relationships in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron. J. 49:440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Wiggans, J. R. 1939. Influence of space and arrangement on the production of soybean plants. Agron. J. 31:314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar