Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-10T14:47:47.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Populations as Affected by Residue Management Practices ina Wheat–Soybean Double-Crop Production System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nyambilila Amuri ,
Kristofor R. Brye ,
Edward E. Gbur ,
Dick Oliver  and
Jason Kelley
Nyambilila Amuri
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, 115 Plant Sciences Building, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Kristofor R. Brye*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, 115 Plant Sciences Building, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Edward E. Gbur
Affiliation:
Agricultural Statistics Laboratory, 101 Agricultural Annex Building, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dick Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, 115 Plant Sciences Building, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Jason Kelley
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Service, South University Avenue, Box 391, Room 307G, Little Rock, AR 72203
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kbrye@uark.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management practices and cropping systems that serve as integrated weedmanagement practices, and at the same time can contribute to improved soilquality, will be important for the sustainability of agricultural productionsystems. The objective of this study was to assess weed species populationdensity under contrasting tillage (conventional tillage [CT] and no tillage[NT]), residue burning (burn and no burn), and residue level (low and high)treatments after 5 and 6 yr of consistent management in a wheat–soybeandouble-crop production system. A field experiment was conducted from fall2001 to fall 2007 in the Mississippi River Delta region of eastern Arkansason a Calloway silt–loam. Weed assessments were conducted twice during thesoybean growing season, before (early season) and after herbicideapplication (late season) in 2006 and 2007. Total weed density was greaterunder CT (513 plants m−2) than under NT (340 plants m−2) early in the growing season in 2006, but was greaterunder NT than CT late in the season in 2007, suggesting that theeffectiveness of glyphosate on total weeds differs between CT and NT.Averaged across residue levels, grass species density was greatest in theNT–burn (68 to 167 plants m−2) combination and lowest in theNT–no-burn (41 to 63 plants m−2) early in the growing season inboth years. Broadleaf density was greater early (200 to 349 plants m−2) than late (18 to 20 plants m−2) in the growingseason under both CT and NT in 2006, but in 2007 broadleaf density did notdiffer by tillage treatment between seasons. Perennial weed density wasgreater in the burn (99 plants m−2) than in the no-burn (59plants m−2) treatment in 2006. No tillage, no burning, and a highresidue level appeared to contribute to the suppression of most weed specieswithout reducing herbicide efficiency.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max Merr.wheat, Triticum aestivum LBurningconventional tillageno tillageresidueweed species composition

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 234 - 243
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

Amuri, N., Brye, K. R., Gbur, E. E., Popp, J., and Chen, P. 2008. Soil property and soybean yield trends in response to alternative wheat residue management practices in a wheat–soybean, double-crop production system in eastern Arkansas. J. Integr. Biosci. 6:64–86.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 2005. A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agron. J. 97:1579–1583.Google Scholar
Barberi, P. and Cascio, B. L. 2000. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on weed seedbank size and composition. Weed Res. 41:325–340.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Dillard, H. R., and Shah, D. A. 2004. Weed seedbank community responses to crop rotation schemes. Crop Prot. 23:95–101.Google Scholar
Bilalis, D., Sidiras, N., Economou, G., and Vakali, C. 2003. Effect of different levels of wheat straw soil surface coverage on weed flora in Vicia faba crops. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 189:233–241.Google Scholar
Brye, K. R., Cordell, M. L., Longer, D. E., and Gbur, E. E. 2006. Residue management practice effects on soil surface properties in a young wheat–soybean double crop system. J. Sustain. Agric. 29:121–150.Google Scholar
Brye, K. R., Longer, D. E., Cordell, M. L., Chen, P., Gbur, E. E., and Pirani, A. L. 2007. Impact of nitrogen applications to wheat on no-tillage double-crop soybean. Crop Man. DOI: 10.1094/CM-2007-0219-01-RS.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205–209.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Cordell, M. L. 2004. Effect of alternative wheat residue management on soil quality and soybean production. . Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas. 122.Google Scholar
Cordell, M. L., Brye, K. R., Longer, D. E., and Gbur, E. E. 2006. Residue management practice effects on soybean establishment and growth in a young wheat–soybean double cropping system. J. Sustain. Agric. 29:97–120.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2007. Nitrogen fertilizer and crop residue effects on seed mortality and germination of eight annual weed species. Weed Sci. 55:123–128.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities-tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. A., Santiveri, F., and Vidal, I. R. 2002. Crop rotation, tillage and crop residue management for wheat and maize in the sub-humid tropical highlands: I. Wheat and legume performance. Field Crops Res. 79:107–122.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Drennan, D. S. H., and Chancellor, R. J. 1983. Influence of cultivation regime on weed floras of arable cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 20:187–197.Google Scholar
Legere, A., Stevenson, F. C., and Ziadi, N. 2008. Contrasting responses of weed communities and crops to 12 years of tillage and fertilization treatments. Weed Technol. 22:309–317.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res. 40:27–47.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A., Reddy, K. N., and Zablotowicz, R. M. 2002a. Weed management in conservation crop production systems. Weed Biol. Manag. 2:123–132.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A., Zablotowicz, R. M., Steinriede, R. W., and Dabney, S. M. 2002b. Conservation management practices in Mississippi delta agriculture: Implications for crop production and environmental quality. Pages 320–326. in van Santen, E. ed. Making Conservation Tillage Conventional: Building a Future on 25 Years of Research. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture. Auburn, AL: Special Report No. 1. Alabama Agric. Expt. Stn. and Auburn University.Google Scholar
Nguojio, M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Hutchinson, C. M. 2003. Effect of cover crop and management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Prot. 22:57–64.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2008. Effect of tillage intensity and herbicide programs on changes in weed species density and composition in the southeastern coastal plains of the United States. Crop Prot. 27:151–160.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Frederick, J. R. 2005. Integrated weed management strategies for maize (Zea mays) production on the southeastern coastal plains of North America. Crop Prot. 24:119–126.Google Scholar
Puricelli, E. and Tuesca, D. 2005. Weed density under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Prot. 24:533–542.Google Scholar
Rankins, A. Jr., Byrd, J. D. Jr., Mask, D. B., Barnett, J. W., and Gerard, P. D. 2005. Survey of soybean weeds in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 19:492–498.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. 2001. Effect of cereal and legume cover crops residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:660–668.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Locke, M. A., Wagner, S. C., Zablotowicz, R. M., Gaston, L. A., and Smeda, R. J. 1995. Chlorimuron ethyl sorption and desorption kinetics in soils and herbicide-desiccated cover crop residues. J. Agric. Food Chem. 33:2752–2757.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Zablowtowicz, R. M., Locke, M. A., and Koger, C. H. 2003. Cover crop, tillage, and herbicide effect on weeds, soil properties, microbial populations, and soybean yield. Weed Sci. 51:987–994.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Effect of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil. Weed Res. 42:76–87.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2006. Weed community and corn yield variability in diverse management systems. Weed Sci. 54:106–113.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weed: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Clements, D. R., Booth, B. D., and Chandler, K. 2002. Evaluation of alternative weed management systems in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation: weed densities, crop yield, and economics. Weed Sci. 50:504–511.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. 1993. Interaction of light, soil moisture, and temperature with weed suppression by hairy vetch residue. Weed Sci. 41:46–51.Google Scholar
[UACES] University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service 2003a. Insecticide Recommendations of Arkansas. Misc. Publ. 144. Little Rock, AR: Ark. Coop. Ext. Serv.Google Scholar
[UACES] University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service 2003b. Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control, Misc. Publ. 44 Little Rock. AR: Ark. Coop. Ext. Serv.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Services 2008. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June 25 2008.Google Scholar
Verkler, T. L. 2007. Evaluation of the sustainability of residue and water management practices in a wheat–soybean double-crop production system in eastern Arkansas. . Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Wruckle, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distribution as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:853–856.Google Scholar