Row spacing is more important than seeding rate for increasing Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) control and grain yield in soybean (Glycine max)
Ghulam Rasool A , Gulshan Mahajan A , Rajpaul Yadav B , Zarka Hanif A and Bhagirath Singh Chauhan A CA The Centre for Plant Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.
B Department of Soil Science, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India.
C Corresponding author. Email: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au
Crop and Pasture Science 68(7) 620-624 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP17229
Submitted: 28 June 2017 Accepted: 18 August 2018 Published: 8 September 2017
Abstract
In Australia, soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) is planted at a low density in wide rows, and weeds substantially reduce yield because of opportunities for their growth in the wide rows. Field studies were conducted over 2 years at the University of Queensland farm, Gatton, Australia, to assess the effect of row spacing and seeding rate on the competitiveness of soybeans with a model weed, Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana Kunth). The experiment was conducted in a split-split plot design, replicated three times. Main plots comprised two seeding rates (40 and 80 kg ha–1), subplots two row spacings (25 and 75 cm), and sub-subplots four Rhodes grass infestation periods (weedy from planting to maturity, weedy from 3 weeks after planting (WAP) to maturity, weedy from 6 WAP to maturity, and weed-free from planting to maturity). The results showed that seed rate did not influence Rhodes grass biomass or soybean yield. Soybean yield was greater and Rhodes grass biomass was less in the 25-cm rows than the 75-cm rows. For the 25-cm rows, Rhodes grass biomass in the plots infested beyond 3 WAP was 81–89% less than in the season-long weedy plots, whereas for the wider row crop, this reduction was only 60–75%. For the 25-cm rows, soybean yield in the plots infested with Rhodes grass beyond 3 WAP was 30–36% less than under weed-free condition. However, for the 75-cm rows, this reduction was 56–65%. The results suggest that planting soybean in wider rows caused greater reduction in yield and required an earlier weed management program than planting in narrow rows. The study also suggested that narrowing row spacing was more important than increasing seeding rates for improving weed control and soybean grain yield.
Additional keywords: closer spacing, critical period of weed control, cultural practices, integrated weed management, planting density, weed dry matter.
References
Board JE, Kamal M, Harville BG (1992) Temporal importance of greater light interception to increased yield in narrow-row soybean. Agronomy Journal 84, 575–579.| Temporal importance of greater light interception to increased yield in narrow-row soybean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Burnside OC, Colville WL (1964) Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12, 109–112.
| Soybean and weed yields as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chauhan BS, Florentine SK, Ferguson JC, Chechetto RG (2017) Implications of narrow crop row spacing in managing weeds in mungbean (Vigna radiata). Crop Protection 95, 116–119.
| Implications of narrow crop row spacing in managing weeds in mungbean (Vigna radiata).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Colton RT, Rose IA, Goodyer GJ (1995) ‘Soybeans.’ Agfact P5.2.6. 2nd edn (NSW Agriculture: Orange, NSW)
Dalley CB, Kells JJ, Renner KA (2004) Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology 18, 177–182.
| Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
DeWerff RP, Conley SP, Colquhoun JB, Davis VM (2014) Can soybean seeding rate be used as an integrated component of herbicide resistance management? Weed Science 62, 625–636.
| Can soybean seeding rate be used as an integrated component of herbicide resistance management?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
FAOSTAT (2008) FAO Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed 15 May 2017).
Hall MR, Swanton CJ, Anderson GW (1992) The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Science 40, 441–447.
Harder DB, Sprague CL, Renner KA (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technology 21, 744–752.
| Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hock SM, Knezevic SZ, Martin AR, Lindquist JL (2006) Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Science 54, 38–46.
| Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XosFGjsA%3D%3D&md5=0b4b23e7752b64870d9029c4d46b697aCAS |
Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Blankenship EE, Van Acker RC, Lindquist JL (2002) Critical period of weed control: The concept and data analysis. Weed Science 50, 773–786.
| Critical period of weed control: The concept and data analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XptV2jtLY%3D&md5=d5c40c5eea761224647c08389d3015d2CAS |
Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Mainz M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology 17, 666–673.
| Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lawn RJ, Imrie BC (1993) Country Report 1—Australia (Soybean research and development in Australia). In ‘Soybean in Asia. Proceedings Lanning Workshop for the Establishment of the Asian Component of a Global Network on Tropical and Subtropical Soybeans’. Bangkok. pp. 11–23 (FAO: Rome)
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 Science 37, 84–92.
Mickelson JA, Renner KA (1997) Weed control using reduced rates of post-emergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. Journal of Production Agriculture 10, 431–437.
| Weed control using reduced rates of post-emergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mulugeta D, Boerboom CM (2000) Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max. Weed Science 48, 35–42.
| Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXhvVekt7s%3D&md5=f283607f1dd258f17dbd4e5141604cdaCAS |
Nieto HJ, Brondo MA, Gonzales JT (1968) Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS 14, 159–166.
Norsworthy JK, Oliver LR (2002) Effect of irrigation, soybean (Glycine max) density, and glyphosate on hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference in soybean. Weed Technology 16, 7–17.
| Effect of irrigation, soybean (Glycine max) density, and glyphosate on hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference in soybean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Puricelli EC, Faccini DE, Orioli GA, Sabbatini MR (2003) Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) competition in narrow- and wide-row soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology 17, 446–451.
| Spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) competition in narrow- and wide-row soybean (Glycine max).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sardana V, Mahajan G, Jabran K, Chauhan BS (2017) Role of competition in managing weeds: An introduction to the special issue. Crop Protection 95, 1–7.
| Role of competition in managing weeds: An introduction to the special issue.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sarver J (2009) Influence of various plant populations on weed removal timing in glyphosate-resistant soybean. MS Thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Schultz JL, Myers DB, Bradley KW (2015) Influence of soybean seeding rate, row spacing, and herbicide programs on the control of resistant waterhemp in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technology 29, 169–176.
| Influence of soybean seeding rate, row spacing, and herbicide programs on the control of resistant waterhemp in glufosinate-resistant soybean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shibles RM, Weber CR (1965) Leaf area, solar radiation interception, and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Science 5, 575–577.
| Leaf area, solar radiation interception, and dry matter production by soybeans.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Steckel LE, Sprague CL (2004) Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technology 18, 947–952.
| Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Teasdale JR (1995) Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technology 9, 113–118.
Wells RJ, Burton JW, Kilen TC (1993) Soybean growth and light interception: Response to differing leaf and stem morphology. Crop Science 33, 520–524.
| Soybean growth and light interception: Response to differing leaf and stem morphology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yelverton FH, Coble HD (1991) Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technology 5, 169–174.
Zimdahl RL (1988) The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. In ‘Weed management in agroecosystems: Ecological approaches’. (Eds MA Altieri, M Liebman) pp. 145–155. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA)
