Abstract
A field study was conducted during 1999, 2000, and 2001 at Stoneville, MS, on a Dundee silty clay loam to determine the impact of a rye cover crop with one or two postemergence (POST) herbicide applications on weed control, yield, and net return in narrow-row glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and conventional soybean systems. Cover crop systems included no–cover crop conventional tillage (CT), no–cover crop no-tillage (NT), and rye NT, all with early POST (EPOST), EPOST followed by late POST (LPOST), and no-herbicide weed management. Weed control and net return among glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and conventional soybean systems were similar. One POST ($111/ha) application of herbicides was more profitable than two POST ($79/ha) applications regardless of soybean cultivar and cover crop system. Rye residue reduced total weed density by 9 and 27% and biomass by 19 and 38% compared with no–cover crop CT and NT, respectively. In the rye cover crop, input costs were higher because of the additional cost of seed, planting, and rye desiccation. The additional cost resulted in a lower net return with the rye cover crop ($29/ha) compared with the no–cover crop CT ($84/ha) or NT ($87/ha) system, even though soybean yield in the rye cover crop system was comparable to that from the no–cover crop CT and NT systems. These results showed that because of additional cost, rye cover crop–based soybean production was less profitable compared with existing no–cover crop–based production systems.Nomenclature: Acifluorfen; bentazon; chlorimuron; clethodim; glufosinate; glyphosate; barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. #3 ECHCG; browntop millet, Brachiaria ramosa (L.) Stapf # PANRA; hemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Rydb. ex A. W. Hill # SEBEX; pitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLA; prickly sida, Sida spinosa L. # SIDSP; sicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOB; smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACH; rye, Secale cereale L. ‘Elbon’; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘DP 3588’, ‘DP 5806 RR’, ‘A 5547 LL’.Additional Index words: Conventional tillage, herbicide, integrated weed management, mulch, net return, no-tillage, transgenic soybean, weed biomass, weed density.Abbreviations: CT, conventional tillage; EPOST, early postemergence; LPOST, late postemergence; NT, no-tillage; POST, postemergence; WAP, weeks after planting.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control and net return were similar among glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant and conventional soybean systems.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Material
- glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and conventional soybean systemse0
- Outcome
- Weed control and net returne0
- Direction
- similare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed control and net return among glyphosate-resistant, glufosinate-resistant, and conventional soybean systems were similar”
Claim · model-written summary
One POST herbicide application was more profitable than two POST applications regardless of soybean cultivar and cover crop system.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- One POST ($111/ha) application of herbicidese0
- Outcome
- profitablee0
- Direction
- more profitablee0
- Comparator
- two POSTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“One POST ($111/ha) application of herbicides was more profitable than two POST ($79/ha) applications regardless of soybean cultivar and cover crop system”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye residue reduced total weed density by 9 and 27% compared with no-cover crop CT and NT.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- Rye residuee1
- Outcome
- total weed densitye1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 9 and 27%e1
- Comparator
- no–cover crop CT and NTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rye cover crop–based soybean production”
e1“Rye residue reduced total weed density by 9 and 27% and biomass by 19 and 38% compared with no–cover crop CT and NT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye residue reduced weed biomass by 19 and 38% compared with no-cover crop CT and NT.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- Rye residuee1
- Outcome
- biomasse1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 19 and 38%e1
- Comparator
- no–cover crop CT and NTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rye cover crop–based soybean production”
e1“Rye residue reduced total weed density by 9 and 27% and biomass by 19 and 38% compared with no–cover crop CT and NT, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In the rye cover crop, input costs were higher because of the added seed, planting and desiccation costs.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- rye cover crope1
- Outcome
- input costse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- because of the additional cost of seed, planting, and rye desiccatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rye cover crop–based soybean production”
e1“In the rye cover crop, input costs were higher because of the additional cost of seed, planting, and rye desiccation”
Claim · model-written summary
The rye cover crop gave a lower net return than no-cover crop CT, $29/ha against $84/ha.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- rye cover crope1
- Outcome
- net returne1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- $29/hae1
- Qualifier
- $84/hae1
- Comparator
- no–cover crop CTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rye cover crop–based soybean production”
e1“The additional cost resulted in a lower net return with the rye cover crop ($29/ha) compared with the no–cover crop CT ($84/ha) or NT ($87/ha) system”
Claim · model-written summary
The rye cover crop gave a lower net return than no-cover crop NT, $29/ha against $87/ha.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- rye cover crope1
- Outcome
- net returne1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- $29/hae1
- Qualifier
- $87/hae1
- Comparator
- NTe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rye cover crop–based soybean production”
e1“The additional cost resulted in a lower net return with the rye cover crop ($29/ha) compared with the no–cover crop CT ($84/ha) or NT ($87/ha) system”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield in the rye cover crop system was comparable to that of the no-cover crop CT and NT systems.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- rye cover crop systeme1
- Outcome
- soybean yielde1
- Direction
- comparablee1
- Comparator
- no–cover crop CT and NT systemse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“even though soybean yield in the rye cover crop system was comparable to that from the no–cover crop CT and NT systems”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
97 papers more in this group
See all 101 papers →herbicide · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
321 papers in the same direction as this paper · 112 in the opposite direction · 26 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- 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.