Abstract
Management inputs that maximize economic return from early soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] production system (ESPS) plantings in the midsouthern USA have not been evaluated fully. The objective was to determine the effect of different weed management systems on yield and net return from irrigated ESPS plantings of soybean following deep (DT; 40–45 cm deep) and shallow (ST; <10 cm deep) fall tillage. Adjacent experiments receiving either DT or ST were conducted in 1999 and 2000 on Sharkey clay (very‐fine, smectitic, thermic Chromic Epiaquert) near Stoneville, MS (33°26′ N lat). Weed management systems were (i) glyphosate‐resistant (GR) cultivar with pre‐emergent (PRE) nonglyphosate [ N ‐(phosphonomethyl)glycine] herbicides followed by one postemergent (POST) application of glyphosate timed to control grasses, (ii) GR cultivar with two POST applications of glyphosate timed to control both grasses and broadleaves, (iii) GR cultivar with PRE nonglyphosate herbicides followed by two POST applications of glyphosate timed to control both grasses and broadleaves, (iv) non‐GR cultivar with PRE herbicides followed by one POST application of a grass herbicide, (v) non‐GR cultivar with POST application of herbicides timed to control both grasses and broadleaves, and (vi) non‐GR cultivar with PRE herbicides followed by POST applications of herbicides timed to control both grasses and broadleaves. Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest. Average yields and net returns from DT and ST were 4286 and 4085 kg ha −1 and $364 and $362 ha −1 , respectively. Thus, the investment in equipment for fall DT for irrigated ESPS plantings is not justified. Postemergent‐only weed management was the cheapest for both GR and non‐GR cultivars. Weed management that used POST‐only glyphosate resulted in the greatest yield and profit from GR cultivars. With non‐GR cultivars, yields were not affected by weed management, but net returns were lower when the most intensive weed management was practiced.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Fall deep tillage gave taller soybean plants than shallow tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall deep tillage gave less weed cover at harvest than shallow tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall deep tillage was more expensive than shallow tillage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Average yield was 4286 kg/ha for deep tillage and 4085 kg/ha for shallow tillage.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- DT and STe2
- Outcome
- Average yieldse2
- Value
- 4286 and 4085 kg ha −1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e2“Average yields and net returns from DT and ST were 4286 and 4085 kg ha −1 and $364 and $362 ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Average net return was $364 per hectare for deep tillage and $362 per hectare for shallow tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- DT and STe2
- Outcome
- net returnse2
- Value
- $364 and $362 ha −1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e2“Average yields and net returns from DT and ST were 4286 and 4085 kg ha −1 and $364 and $362 ha −1 , respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Investment in equipment for fall deep tillage is not justified for irrigated early soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Outcome
- investment in equipment for fall DTe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e3“the investment in equipment for fall DT for irrigated ESPS plantings is not justified”
Claim · model-written summary
Postemergent-only weed management was the cheapest for both glyphosate-resistant and non-resistant cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Material
- GR and non‐GR cultivarse4
- Treatment
- Postemergent‐only weed managemente4
- Outcome
- the cheapeste4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e4“Postemergent‐only weed management was the cheapest for both GR and non‐GR cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
POST-only glyphosate weed management gave the greatest yield and profit in glyphosate-resistant cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Material
- GR cultivarse5
- Treatment
- POST‐only glyphosatee5
- Outcome
- yield and profite5
- Direction
- greateste5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e5“Weed management that used POST‐only glyphosate resulted in the greatest yield and profit from GR cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
In non-resistant cultivars, yields were not affected by weed management.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Material
- non‐GR cultivarse6
- Treatment
- weed managemente6
- Outcome
- yieldse6
- Direction
- not affectede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e6“With non‐GR cultivars, yields were not affected by weed management, but net returns were lower when the most intensive weed management was practiced”
Claim · model-written summary
In non-resistant cultivars, net returns were lower under the most intensive weed management.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Material
- non‐GR cultivarse6
- Treatment
- the most intensive weed managemente6
- Outcome
- net returnse6
- Direction
- lowere6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Fall DT was more expensive than ST but resulted in taller soybean plants and less weed cover at harvest”
e6“With non‐GR cultivars, yields were not affected by weed management, but net returns were lower when the most intensive weed management was practiced”
The same questions in other papers
glyphosate · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
54 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
119 papers more in this group
See all 123 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.