Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T06:35:41.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Row Spacing on Weed Control in Soybeans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

L. M. Wax and
J. W. Pendleton
L. M. Wax
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
J. W. Pendleton
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted over a 2-year period at Urbana, Illinois, to evaluate soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr., var. Harosoy 63 and Wayne) and weed yields as influenced by row spacing, variety, weed control methods, and 2,3,5-triiodobenzoic acid (hereinafter referred to as TIBA). Soybean yield increased and weed yield decreased as row spacing was decreased. Compared to the yield from 40-inch rows, soybean yield increase was 10, 18, and 20% for 30, 20, and 10-inch rows, respectively. Both cultivation and applications of a,a,a-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine (trifluralin) controlled annual grass weeds at all row spacings. Cultivation controlled broadleaf weeds at all row spacings. Some broadleaf weeds, unaffected by trifluralin, made sufficient growth to impair soybean yields in wide rows but not in narrow rows.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1968, pp. 462 - 465
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. 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
2. Greer, H. A. L. and Anderson, I. C. 1965. Response of soybeans to triiodobenzoic acid under field conditions. Crop Sci. 5:229–232.Google Scholar
3. Hartwig, E. E. 1957. Row width and rates of planting in the southern states. Soybean Digest 17:13–14, 16.Google Scholar
4. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberii with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.Google Scholar
5. 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
6. Lehman, W. F. and Lambert, J. W. 1960. Effects of spacing of soybean plants between and within rows on yield and its components. Agron. J. 52:84–86.Google Scholar
7. 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.Google Scholar
8. 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
9. Pendleton, J. W., Bernard, R. L., and Hadley, H. H. 1960. Grow soybeans in narrow rows. Illinois Res. 2(1):3–4.Google Scholar
10. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacings, cultivations, and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.Google Scholar
11. Peters, E. J., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449–458.Google Scholar
12. Peters, E. J., Davis, F. S., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1961. Interrelations of cultivations, herbicides, and methods of application for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 9:639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Staniforth, D. W. and Weber, C. R. 1956. Effects of annual weeds on the growth and yield of soybeans. Agron. J. 48:467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Weber, C. R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1957. Competitive relationships in variable weed and soybean stands. Agron. J. 49:440–444.Google Scholar