Abstract
Management inputs that maximize economic return from the early plantings of soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in the midsouthern USA have not been evaluated fully. The objective was to compare perennial weed control in and yields and economic returns from plantings of maturity group (MG) IV and V soybean cultivars grown in the field under different weed management systems (WMS) following shallow (ST) and deep (DT) fall tillage. Adjacent experiments were conducted on Tunica clay (clayey over loamy, smectitic, nonacid, thermic Vertic Haplaquept) near Stoneville, MS (lat. 33°26′N). Weed management systems were (i) glyphosate [ N ‐(phosphonomethyl)glycine]‐resistant (GR) cultivars with preemergent (PRE) nonglyphosate herbicides followed by postemergent (POST) glyphosate; (ii) GR cultivars with POST glyphosate; (iii) non‐GR cultivars with PRE plus POST nonglyphosate herbicides; and (iv) non‐GR cultivars with POST nonglyphosate herbicides. Control of perennial redvine [ Brunnichia ovata (Walt.) Shinners] declined in the ST environment when non‐GR cultivars were used, but this did not result in a yield decline. Control of perennial johnsongrass [ Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] at the end of the study period averaged <40% when non‐GR cultivars were used and >93% when GR cultivars were used regardless of tillage treatment, and this was associated with lower yield. Use of PRE + POST vs. POST‐only weed management sometimes resulted in lower profits regardless of fall tillage treatment. The fall tillage treatment × WMS interaction was not significant for yield or net return, which indicates that use of DT for perennial weed management is not economical.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Redvine control declined with shallow tillage and non-GR cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- non‐GR cultivarse0
- Interactor
- Brunnichia ovata
Brunnichia ovatae0weedt1 - Outcome
- Control of perennial redvinee0
- Direction
- declinede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Control of perennial redvine [ Brunnichia ovata (Walt.) Shinners] declined in the ST environment when non‐GR cultivars were used, but this did not result in a yield decline”
t0“Non‐Resistant Soybean”
t1“Non‐Resistant Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The decline in redvine control did not cause a yield decline.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- yield declinee0
- Direction
- did note0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but this did not result in a yield decline”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Johnsongrass control averaged below 40% with non-GR cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- non‐GR cultivarse0
- Interactor
- Sorghum halepense
.jpg?width=60)
Sorghum halepensee0weedt1 - Outcome
- Control of perennial johnsongrasse0
- Value
- <40%e0
- Comparator
- GR cultivarse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Control of perennial johnsongrass [ Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] at the end of the study period averaged <40% when non‐GR cultivars were used and >93% when GR cultivars were used regardless of tillage treatment”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Johnsongrass control averaged above 93% with GR cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- GR cultivarse0
- Interactor
- Sorghum halepenseSorghum halepensee0weedt1
- Outcome
- Control of perennial johnsongrasse0
- Value
- >93%e0
- Comparator
- non‐GR cultivarse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Control of perennial johnsongrass [ Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] at the end of the study period averaged <40% when non‐GR cultivars were used and >93% when GR cultivars were used regardless of tillage treatment”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The johnsongrass control difference was associated with lower yield.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Sorghum halepenseSorghum halepensee1weedt1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and this was associated with lower yield”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
e1“Control of perennial johnsongrass [ Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] at the end of the study period averaged <40% when non‐GR cultivars were used and >93% when GR cultivars were used regardless of tillage treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE plus POST management sometimes yielded lower profits than POST only.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- PRE + POSTe0
- Outcome
- profitse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- POST‐only weed managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of PRE + POST vs. POST‐only weed management sometimes resulted in lower profits regardless of fall tillage treatment”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall tillage by weed-management interaction was not significant for yield.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- fall tillage treatment × WMSe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fall tillage treatment × WMS interaction was not significant for yield or net return”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall tillage by weed-management interaction was not significant for net return.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- fall tillage treatment × WMSe0
- Outcome
- net returne0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fall tillage treatment × WMS interaction was not significant for yield or net return”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude deep tillage for perennial weed management is uneconomical.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- use of DT for perennial weed management is not economicale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“use of DT for perennial weed management is not economical”
t0“Soybean”
t1“Soybean”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 322 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
456 papers more in this group
See all 460 papers →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.