Abstract
Soybean field experiments were performed to investigate the weed-suppressing effects of different tillage systems and cover crop mulches at two locations in southwest Germany during 2014 and 2015. The influence of three different tillage systems on weed control efficacy, soybean plant density, and crop yield was determined. In the no-till system (NT), two different cover crops, (rye and barley), were treated by a roller-crimper before soybean sowing. For the reduced tillage system (RT), shallow soil cultivation (7.5 cm depth) using a cultivator after cover crop harvest was performed. The third system was conventional tillage (CT), which used a plow (25 cm depth) without any previous cover crop treatment. Finally, a CT system without weed control was used as a control treatment (C). Weed densities in the field experiments ranged from 1 to 164 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album (L.), Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., and Sonchus arvensis (L.) as the predominant weed species. No difference in weed suppression was found between the two cover crops. The highest cover crop soil coverage was measured in the NT treatment. The greatest weed density (164 plants m−2) was measured in the untreated control. CT, RT and NT reduced weed density up to 71%, 85%, and 61%, respectively, to C, across both locations and years. Soybean plant density was reduced in NT (−36%) and CT (−18%) based on aimed sown plant density. Highest crop yields up to 2.4 t ha−1 were observed in RT, while NT resulted in lower yields (1.1 t ha−1). Our work reveals the importance of cover crops for weed suppression in soybean cropping systems without herbicide application.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Weed densities ranged from 1 to 164 plants m−2.
- Taxon
- Soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Outcome
- Weed densitiese0
- Value
- 1 to 164 plants m−2e0
- Setting
- field experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“Weed densities in the field experiments ranged from 1 to 164 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album (L.), Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., and Sonchus arvensis (L.) as the predominant weed species.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chenopodium album was among the predominant weed species.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Chenopodium album (L.)
Chenopodium albume0weed - Outcome
- predominant weed speciese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“with Chenopodium album (L.), Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., and Sonchus arvensis (L.) as the predominant weed species.”
Claim · model-written summary
Echinochloa crus-galli was among the predominant weed species.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.
Echinochloa crus-gallie0weed - Outcome
- predominant weed speciese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“with Chenopodium album (L.), Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., and Sonchus arvensis (L.) as the predominant weed species.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sonchus arvensis was among the predominant weed species.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Sonchus arvensis (L.)
.jpg?width=60)
Sonchus arvensise0weed - Outcome
- predominant weed speciese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“with Chenopodium album (L.), Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., and Sonchus arvensis (L.) as the predominant weed species.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rye and barley cover crops did not differ in weed suppression.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- rye and barleye1
- Outcome
- weed suppressione0
- Direction
- No differencee0
- Comparator
- two cover cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“No difference in weed suppression was found between the two cover crops.”
e1“two different cover crops, (rye and barley)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till had the highest cover crop soil coverage.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NT treatmente0
- Outcome
- cover crop soil coveragee0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“The highest cover crop soil coverage was measured in the NT treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
The untreated control had the greatest weed density at 164 plants m−2.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- untreated controle0
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 164 plants m−2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“The greatest weed density (164 plants m−2) was measured in the untreated control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage reduced weed density by up to 71% relative to the control.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- conventional tillage (CT)e1
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 71%e0
- Comparator
- Ce0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“CT, RT and NT reduced weed density up to 71%, 85%, and 61%, respectively, to C, across both locations and years.”
e1“The third system was conventional tillage (CT)”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage reduced weed density by up to 85% relative to the control.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- reduced tillage system (RT)e1
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 85%e0
- Comparator
- Ce0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“CT, RT and NT reduced weed density up to 71%, 85%, and 61%, respectively, to C, across both locations and years.”
e1“reduced tillage system (RT)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till reduced weed density by up to 61% relative to the control.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- no-till system (NT)e1
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 61%e0
- Comparator
- Ce0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“CT, RT and NT reduced weed density up to 71%, 85%, and 61%, respectively, to C, across both locations and years.”
e1“no-till system (NT)”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till reduced soybean plant density by 36% relative to intended sown density.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Soybean plant densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- −36%e0
- Comparator
- aimed sown plant densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“Soybean plant density was reduced in NT (−36%) and CT (−18%) based on aimed sown plant density.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage reduced soybean plant density by 18% relative to intended sown density.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Outcome
- Soybean plant densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- −18%e0
- Comparator
- aimed sown plant densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“Soybean plant density was reduced in NT (−36%) and CT (−18%) based on aimed sown plant density.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced tillage had the highest crop yield, up to 2.4 t ha−1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“Highest crop yields up to 2.4 t ha−1 were observed in RT”
Claim · model-written summary
No-till yielded 1.1 t ha−1, lower than reduced tillage.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1.1 t ha−1e0
- Comparator
- RTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“Highest crop yields up to 2.4 t ha−1 were observed in RT, while NT resulted in lower yields (1.1 t ha−1).”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude cover crops are important for weed suppression without herbicides.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- cover crops for weed suppression in soybean cropping systems without herbicide applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Soybean”
e0“Our work reveals the importance of cover crops for weed suppression in soybean cropping systems without herbicide application.”
The same questions in other papers
Hordeum vulgare · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
tillage · organism · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →tillage · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
125 papers in the same direction as this paper · 264 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
386 papers more in this group
See all 390 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.