Paper · 2003 · Weed Science

Integration of cover crops with postemergence herbicides in no-till corn and soybean

Robert S. Gallagher; John Cardina; Mark Loux

13
claims
17
verbatim quotes
31
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The integration of cover crops with selected postemergence herbicides was evaluated on the basis of weed control and grain yields in no-till soybean and corn. Soybean was planted into wheat residue, whereas corn was planted into hairy vetch residue. Full, half, and quarter rates and sequential herbicide applications were made. The wheat cover crop did not increase weed suppression but increased soybean grain yields. Half rates of thifensulfuron plus quizalofop-P as single or split applications were as effective as full rates in reducing weed weight in soybean. Soybean grain yields were similar in the half- and full-rate treatments in 1994, but yield was highest in the full-rate treatment in 1995. The hairy vetch cover crop did not increase weed suppression but lowered corn stands and grain yields in 1995 and enhanced corn grain yields in 1996. Full, half, and quarter rates (1996 only) of nicosulfuron plus primisulfuron were equally effective in reducing weed weight. Corn grain yields were similar at all herbicide rates in 1995 but were inversely related to herbicide rate in 1996. Split herbicide applications did not improve weed suppression over single applications of the same herbicide rate in either crop. Results indicate that cover crops can improve crop productivity and reduced rates of environmentally benign herbicides can minimize the herbicide requirements in no-till corn and soybean.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The wheat cover crop did not increase weed suppression in no-till soybean.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
wheat cover crope0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed suppressione0
Direction
did not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The wheat cover crop did not increase weed suppression but increased soybean grain yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 329–418 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The wheat cover crop increased soybean grain yields.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
wheat cover crope0
Outcome
soybean grain yieldse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The wheat cover crop did not increase weed suppression but increased soybean grain yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 329–418 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Half rates of thifensulfuron plus quizalofop-P, as single or split applications, were as effective as full rates in reducing weed weight in soybean.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
Half rates of thifensulfuron plus quizalofop-Pe0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed weighte0
Direction
as effective ase0
Comparator
full ratese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Half rates of thifensulfuron plus quizalofop-P as single or split applications were as effective as full rates in reducing weed weight in soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 420–565 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean grain yields were similar in the half- and full-rate herbicide treatments in 1994.

Taxon
SoybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
half- and full-rate treatmentse0
Outcome
Soybean grain yieldse0
Direction
similare0
Qualifier
in 1994e0
Comparator
full-rate treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Soybean grain yields were similar in the half- and full-rate treatments in 1994”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–646 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean grain yield was highest in the full-rate herbicide treatment in 1995.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxt0
Treatment
full-rate treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
in 1995e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 77–84 · show in text ↑
e0

“yield was highest in the full-rate treatment in 1995”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–704 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The hairy vetch cover crop did not increase weed suppression in no-till corn.

Treatment
hairy vetch cover crope0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed suppressione0
Direction
did not increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–72 · show in text ↑
e0

“The hairy vetch cover crop did not increase weed suppression”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–766 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The hairy vetch cover crop lowered corn stands and grain yields in 1995.

Treatment
hairy vetch cover crope0
Outcome
corn stands and grain yieldse0
Direction
lowerede0
Qualifier
in 1995e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The hairy vetch cover crop did not increase weed suppression but lowered corn stands and grain yields in 1995”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–815 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The hairy vetch cover crop enhanced corn grain yields in 1996.

Treatment
hairy vetch cover crope0
Outcome
corn grain yieldse0
Direction
enhancede0
Qualifier
in 1996e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The hairy vetch cover crop did not increase weed suppression but lowered corn stands and grain yields in 1995 and enhanced corn grain yields in 1996”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 706–854 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full, half and quarter rates of nicosulfuron plus primisulfuron were equally effective in reducing weed weight in corn (quarter rate in 1996 only).

Treatment
Full, half, and quarter rates (1996 only) of nicosulfuron plus primisulfurone0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed weighte0
Direction
equally effectivee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–72 · show in text ↑
e0

“Full, half, and quarter rates (1996 only) of nicosulfuron plus primisulfuron were equally effective in reducing weed weight”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–979 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn grain yields were similar at all herbicide rates in 1995.

Treatment
all herbicide ratese0
Outcome
Corn grain yieldse0
Direction
similare0
Qualifier
in 1995e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Corn grain yields were similar at all herbicide rates in 1995”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1042 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn grain yields were inversely related to herbicide rate in 1996.

Treatment
herbicide ratee0
Outcome
Corn grain yieldse0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Qualifier
in 1996e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Corn grain yields were similar at all herbicide rates in 1995 but were inversely related to herbicide rate in 1996”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1095 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Split herbicide applications did not improve weed suppression over single applications of the same herbicide rate in either corn or soybean.

Treatment
Split herbicide applicationse0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed suppressione0
Direction
did not improvee0
Comparator
single applications of the same herbicide ratee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“corn and soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–84 · show in text ↑
e0

“Split herbicide applications did not improve weed suppression over single applications of the same herbicide rate in either crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1097–1225 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that cover crops can improve crop productivity and reduced rates of herbicides can minimize herbicide requirements in no-till corn and soybean.

Outcome
herbicide requirementse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cover crops can improve crop productivity and reduced rates of environmentally benign herbicides can minimize the herbicide requirements in no-till corn and soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1413 · show in text ↑

thifensulfuron · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Primisulfuron · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Triticum aestivum · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

Vicia villosa · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 12 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

nicosulfuron · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 36 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

Vicia villosa · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

54 papers: 45 positive, 9 negative or no effect

44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

Triticum aestivum · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

57 papers: 36 positive, 21 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

53 papers more in this group

See all 57 papers →

cover crop · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

48 papers: 36 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

44 papers more in this group

See all 48 papers →

8 of 14 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.