Barrentine, William L.

Tupper, G. R.

English

Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University Institutional Repository

Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Bulletins Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) 6-1-1983 Tillage and weed control practices in soybeans grown on Sharkey clay soil William L. Barrentine G. R. Tupper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins Recommended Citation Barrentine, William L. and Tupper, G. R., "Tillage and weed control practices in soybeans grown on Sharkey clay soil" (1983). Bulletins. 860. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins/860 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact scholcomm@msstate.libanswers.com. 3uHetin918 June 1983Tilloge oncl UJeecl ControlPractices in Soybeons Graujnon Shorkey Cloy SoilUl.l.Borrentine • G.R.TupperMISSISSIPPI AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY EXPERIMENT STATIONR RODNEY FOIL, DIRECTOR MISSISSIPPI STATE, MS 39762Mississippi State UniversityJames D McComas, President Louis N Wise, Vice PresidentTilloge oncl UJeed Control Proctkesin Soybeans Grown on Shorkey Cloy SoilSummaryCentennial soybeans weregrown in 40-inch rows in 1978, 1979and 1980 on Sharkey clay soil inplots that were either disked (3 to 4inches deep), chisel plowed (4 to 5inches deep) or superchisel plowed(7 to 8 inches deep) in the fall orspring before planting and treatedwith preplant herbicides. SoybeanIyields were 3.7 to 4.7 bu/acre loweron the spring-chisel or superchiselplowed plots than on plots thatiwere fall or spring disked or fallIchiseled in 1979. There were nosignificant differences in 1978 or1980. A preplant incorporated fallapplication of trifluralin + metri-buzin at 1.25 + 1.5 lb/acre gaveabout 12% less control of annualgrasses than did preplant spring-japplied treatments of paraquat +' metribuzin or paraquat + metribuzini+ alachlor. There were no consistentyield differences among the herbi-cide treatments during the three-year period.Fall disking, chiseling or super-chiseling followed by none, one ortwo diskings before planting indi-cated that method of fall tillage didnot affect soybean yield. Yieldresponse from the number ofspringdiskings was inconsistent. Soybeanyields in 1978 averaged about 2.5bu/acre more following one or twospring diskings than following nospring disking, while average yieldswere about 4 bu/acre less followingone or two diskings in 1979.A comparison of 12 differentherbicide combinations applied inthe spring before planting soybeansindicated that mixtures containingcyanazine were less effective forcontrol of annual weeds than weremixtures containing metribuzin inMore than 50% of the Delta of(Mississippi is composed of clay(buckshot, gumbo) soils; Sharkey,Alligator and Bowling series (8).I Problems associated with managingthese soils for soybean productioninclude providing surface and inter-nal drainage and keeping the soilsin a condition suitable for planting.The primary objective of preplanttillage is to provide a seedbed tojinsure a stand.IPettiet (3) reported that soilIacidity and compaction were pri-mary contributors to restricted cot-ton and soybean plant growth ondrought-prone silt loam and siltyclay loam soils with a history oflowyields.Deep tillage (subsoiling, chisel-ing) is a common practice for manycotton producers. Tupper (6) recentlyreported a two-year average of 8.1bu/acre soybean yield increasefrom chisel plowing a silty clay soilin early March before plantingsoybeans in mid-May. Yield responseto tillage of heavy clay soils hasbeen less encouraging. Heatherly(1 )was unableto demonstratesoybeanyield differences between disking,shallow chiseling (6 inches), deepchiseling (12 inches) or subsoiling(18 to 20 inches) Sharkey clay soilin the spring before planting.Crop yield increases attributed todeep tillage usually have been inresponse to increased water intakeby the soil profile (6). A parabolicsubsoiler and chisel plow to permitdeep (16 to 18 inches) and shallow(5 to 10 inches) tillage with reducedenergy requirements was designedby Tupper (4, 5). More recently aparabolic super chisel was designedto provide 7- to 14-inch tillage (7).two of three years. However, themixture of paraquat + cyanazine +alachlor was as effective as werethe mixtures containing metribuzin.There were no consistent soybeanyield differences among the herbi-cide treatments.Yields from soybeans plantedwithout seedbed preparation insoybean stubble after treatmentwith any one of six different herbi-cide mixtures applied in the springbefore planting were equal to orgreater than yields from plots thatwere chisel plowed in the fall andtreated preplant soil incorporatedwith trifluralin + metribuzin in thespring. Soybeans stubble-plantedin 1980 (a dry year) produced higheryields than did any other tillagetreatment in any of the four testsconducted.The super chisel was designed todecrease the soil lift problem of theparabolic subsoiler on heavy claysoils, thereby resulting in smallerclods that are more easily brokenup for a suitable seedbed.Four tests were conducted toevaluate soybean and weed responseto (1) fall and spring tillage methodswith herbicide treatments super-imposed, (2) fall tillage method andnumber ofspring diskings followedby a common spring herbicidetreatment, (3) conventional falltillage and several spring-appliedpreplant herbicides and (4) conven-tional fall tillage plus a springpreplant, soil-incorporated herbicidetreatment compared to several pre-plant spring-applied treatmentswith no fall or preplant tillage.The four tests were conducted inthe same area of a field ofSharkey clay soil (6.0, 27.6, 66.4and 1.7% sand, silt, clay and organicmatter, respectively, pH 6.1) in1978, 1979 and 1980. Soybeans hadbeen grown on the area before thetests. The fall treatments wereinitiated in 1977. Table 1 describesthe experimental design, number ofreplications, treatment compositionand abbreviations of treatmentsfor each of the four tests. All treat-ments except trifluralin + metri-buzin were applied with 0.5% (v/v)X-77® surfactant. Tillage, herbicideapplication, planting and harvestdates by test are listed in Table 2.An experimental unit consisted offour 40-inch-wide rows 50 ft long.Each test was cultivated three orMaterials and Methodsfour times during each growingseason to a 14-inch band centeredon the row.Disking and herbicide incorpora-tion were accomplished with a 14-fttandem disk harrow equipped with18-inch disc blades set to disk 3 to 4inches deep. The parabolic chisel(or the parabolic super chisel) wasoperated perpendicular to row direc-tion in Tests 1 and 3 and parallel tothe row direction in Tests 2 and 4.Chiseling depth was 4 to 5 inchesand the super chiseling depth was 7to 8 inches. A bed conditioner wasused on all plots just ahead of theplanter in Tests 1, 2 and 3. Cen-tennial soybeans were planted 1.5to 2.5 inches deep at a seeding rateof 50 lb/acre, using a planterequipped with double-disk openers.All herbicides were applied artank mixes and broadcast in 20 g£ 1water/acre. Percentage weed contrc 1(0 = none, 100 = excellent) anulsoybean stand (calculated from th|number of plants in 10 ft of ro\i.from the center two rows of eacllplot) were determined four weekkiafter soybean planting. Weed countsby species were made on March 21just before the spring tillage anaherbicide treatments in 1978. Onll'!the major species were counted i:iii1979 and 1980. Plots were combimt'harvested for yield determination,and recorded yields were adjuste*-ito 13% moisture. The weight of lOoiseed was determined within threeweeks after harvest.Table 1. Descriptionand 1980.of tests 1 through 4 conducted on Sharkey clay soil, MAFES Delta 1iranch,1978, 1979TestNo.Experi-mentalDesignNo.Reps.Treatment CompositiontSplitplot 5 Main plots SubplotsTillage Abbr. Herbicides Rate-lb/A Time applied Abbr.Disk - Fall D-F Trifluralin + metribuzin 1 25 + 1.5 Fall TMF"""Disk - Spring D-S Paraquat + metribuzin 0 5 + 0.75 Early spring PMES^Chisel - Fall C-F Paraquat + metribuzin 0 5 + 0.75 Late spring PMLS^Chisel - Spring C-S Paraquat + metribuzin 0 5 + 0.75Super chisel - Fall SC-F + alachlor + 2.5 Early spring PMAES^Super chisel - Spring SC-S Paraquat + metribuzin 0+ alachlor +5 + 0.752.5 Late spring PMALS^Main Plots SubplotsSplit 6 Fall tillage Abbr. Number spring diskingsplotDiskChiselSuper chiselDcsc012Continued2Table 1. (Continued)Test Experimental No.No. Design Reps. Treatment CompositionTreatment^^ Randomized3 complete block 6 Herbicide Rate- lb/A Abbrparaquat + metribuzin 0.5 + 0.75 PMparaquat + cyanazine 0.5 + 1.8 PCparaquat + metribuzin + alachlor 0.5 + 0.75 + 2.5 PMAparaquat + cyanazine + alachlor 0.5 + 1.8 + 2 .5 PCAglyphosate + metribuzin 1.0 + 0.75 GMglyphosate + cyanazine 1.0 + 1.8 GCglyphosate + metribuzin + alachlor 1.0 + 0.75 + 2.5 GMAglyphosate + cyanazine + alachlor 1.0 + 1.8 + 2 .5 GCA2,4-D + metribuzin 1.0 + 0.75 2M2,4-D + cyanazine 1.0 + 1 .82C2,4-D + metribuzin + alachlor 1.0 + 0.75 + 2.5 2MA2,4-D + cyanazine + alachlor 1.0 + 1.8 + 2 . 5 2CAcultivated check UTreatment CompositionRandomized Rate4 complete block 5 Herbicides lb /A Abbrparaquat + metribuzin 0.5 + 0.75 PM^glyphosate + metribuzin 1.0 + 0.75 Gm22,4-D + metribuzin 1.0 + 0.75 2M^paraquat + metribuzin + alachlor 0.5 + 0.7 5 + 2.5 PMA^glyphosate + metribuzin + alachlor 1.0 + 0.75 + 2.52GMA2,4-D + metribuzin + alachlor 1.0 + 0.75 + 2. 5 2MA^trifluralin + metribuzin 1.0 + 0. 50 TM^"'"Applied in the fall and double-disked incorporated - two passes in opposite directions.Applied preplanting in the spring over-the-top to existing weed coverEntire test was treated preplanting with a mixture of paraquat + metribuzin + alachlor at0.5 + 0.75 + 2.5 lb/A.ATest area was chisel plowed and double-disked in the fall.Applied preplanting in the spring and double-disked incorporated - two passes in opposite directions.Plot was chiseled plowed in the fall parallel to row direction.Table 2. Tillage, herbicide application, planting and harvest dates andtest number, MAFES Delta Branch, 1978, 1979 and 1980.Test^/YearPractice number— 1978 1979 1980TillageFall (F) 1 thru 4 Nov 15,1977 Nov . 4,1978 Nov. 21, 1979Spring (S) 1 Mar 23 Apr. 21 Feb. 222 Mar 23, Apr. 21 Apr. 21, May 15 Apr. 8, Apr. 22HerbicideapplicationFall (F) 1 and 4 Nov 15, 1977 Nov. 4, 1978 Nov.21, 1979Early Spring (ES) 1 Mar 28 Apr. 21 Apr 8Late Spring (LS) 1 Apr . 20 May 15 Apr. 252 Apr . 27 May 15 May 83 Apr . 27 May 15 May 94 Apr . 20 May 15 May 9Planting 1 thru 4 May 19 June 11 June 2Harvest 1 thru 4 Oct . 31 Oct. 25 Nov.121/ See Table 1 for test description.3ResultsWeed populations. The majorwinter weeds in all tests werebuttercup in 1978, little barley in1979 and both in 1980 (Table 3). Thefall-tilled plots in Test 1 had about90% fewer weeds in 1978 and 1979and 37 to 97% fewer weeds in 1980than did the spring-tilled plots.There were fewer weeds in the fall-disked plots than in the fall-chiseledor fall-super chiseled plots each yearin Tests 1 and 2. The treatments inTest 4 that did not receive falltillage had nearly 10 times moreweeds than the treatment that waschisel plowed the previous fall. Thecounts were made before springtillage; therefore, the above differ-ences actually compared fall tillageto no tillage from the previous fallto mid-March of each year.Data are not shown on anindividual plot basis, but the fall-applied treatment of trifluralin +metribuzin in Test 1 controlled thewinter weeds each year. Thesummerweeds were seedling johnsongrass,bamyardgrass,hemp sesbania, pricklysida and morningglory. Johnson-grass increased in severity duringthe three-year period in plots thatwere not treated with trifluralin oralachlor. Prostrate knotweed in-creased in plots in Test 1 wheretrifluralin + metribuzin was appliedin the fall.All herbicides applied preplantto weeds provided effective controlof the winter vegetation. Paraquatcombinations gave effective foliageburn down within four to five dayswhile about two weeks were requiredfor the glyphosate or 2, 4-D mixturesto control weeds. 2, 4-D was lesseffective on little barley than wasparaquat or glyphosate.Test 1 - Fall and spring tillageand herbicides. Summer annualweed control did not differ amongtillage treatments in any year (Table4). Fall-applied triflurahn + metri-buzin gave good control but lessthan that provided by the spring-Table 3. Major winter weeds by test number, MAFES Delta Branch, 1978-80.Year and major weedTest number—''1978 1979 1980Buttercur Little barley Buttercup Little barley-N0./3 ft'Test 1Tillage PlotDFDSCFCSSCFSCSTest 2DCSCTest 3Entire areaAverageTest AFall Chisel PlotAll other plots1.628.812.882.47.883.82.113. 59.71.18.789.13.221.89.671.28.291.64.117.511.24.110.8 .110.30.26.81.610.63.212,20.75.23.50.32.214.30.12.42.48.94.610.80.33.62.80.43.211.21/See Table 1 for test description.applied preplant treatment comb-inations in 1979 and 1980. Paraquat+ metribuzin and paraquat + metri-buzin + alachlor applied preplant inlate spring of 1978 gave bettercontrol than did the other treat-ments. A soybean stand responseoccurred only in 1980 when thestand after spring chiseling wasbetter than the stands in all othertillage treatments except springsuper chiseling. All ofthe stands in1980, however, were within therange necessary formaximum yield(2).A yield difference due to tillagewas obtained only in 1979. Bothdisking treatments and both fallchiseling treatments produced thehighest yields. Spring chisel plow-ing reduced yields.There were yield differences?among the herbicide treatments*each year, but the pattern was noticonsistent. Yields produced on theplots treated with a late-spring;application ofparaquat + metribuzin+ alachlor in 1978 were higher thanthose produced from plots treatedwith an early spring application ofparaquat + metribuzin or a fallapplication of trifluralin + metri-buzin. Yields from the paraquat+metribuzin treatment applied inlate spring were higher than fromall other treatments in 1979. Thetrifluralin + metribuzin treatmentapplied in the fall resulted in loweryields in 1980 than did the paraquat+ metribuzin treatment applied inearly spring. However, the ex-tremely low yields ( <8.5 bu/acre)and small yield differences betweentreatments ( <1.4 bu/acre) in thedry year of 1980 tend to reduce theusefulness of the 1980 data.Test 2 - Fall tillage and number ofspring diskings. No "practical"weed control differences amongfall tillage practices or number ofspring diskings occurred any year.(Table 5). Soybean plant popula-tions in 1979 were 8 to 12 thousandplants per acre higher in the plotswith no spring disking than inplots with two diskings. All stands,however, bordered on the low sidefor optimum yields (2). Yields fromthe plots receiving no spring disk-ings were significantly lowest andhighest in 1978 and 1979, respec-tively. Fall tillage method did notinfluence yield significantly.Test 3 - Spring-applied preplantherbicides. All treatments gavebetter weed control than the culti-vated check in 1978, 1979 and 1980(Table 6). Weed control in 1979 and1980 was significantly lower fromtreatments containing cyanazinethan from those containing metri-buzin, except for the combinationof paraquat + cyanazine + alachlor.There were no consistent soybean-stand differences among the treat-ments over the three-year period.Stands in 1979 were lower thandesired for yield potential. All her-bicide treatment means for soybeanstand in 1980 were higher than forthe cultivated check. The cultivatedcheck also had significantly loweryields in 1978 (3 to 6 bu/acre) and1980 (2 to 4 bu/acre). Yields in thesetwo years were extremely low.Table 4. Weed control, soybean stand, seed weight and soybean yield, by tillage and herbicideII ,21treatments. Test 1, MAFES Delta Branch, 1978-80.- -Weed controlItemSoybean stand Seed weight1978 1979 1980 1978 1979 1980 1978 1979 1980 1978Soybean yield1979 1980-%- -1000 plants/Acre—-g/100- -bu/Acre-1 i ] lageD-F 91 a 96 a 94 a 153 a 58 a 73 be 10 9 a 14 4 c 13 8 a 18 6 a 44 3 a 8 4 aD-S 88 a 97 a 93 a 143 a 58 a 76 be 10 8 a 14 5 be 14 1 a 20 3 a 44 4 a 9 8 aC-F 93 a 97 a 93 a 137 a 60 a 66 c 11 3 a 14 7 abc 13 9 a 19 4 a 44 2 a 8 2 aC-S 94 a 97 a 93 a 145 a 57 a 112 a 10 9 a 15 1 a 14 0 a 19 4 a 39 7 b 8 4 aSC-F 91 a 93 a 93 a 121 a 52 a 85 be 11 0 a 14 9 abc 14 2 a 18 5 a 41 4 ab 9 7 aSC-S 92 a 97 a 94 a 126 a 54 a 100 ab 10 9 a 14 9 ab 13 9 a 18 7 a 40 6 b 8 0 aHerbicidesTM-F 88 b 82 b 85 b 138 a 58 a 82 a 17 0 a 14 8 a 13 8 a 18 1 c 41 7 b 7 1 bPM-ES 88 b 99 a 94 a 134 a 60 a 80 a 11 0 a 14 8 a 13 9 a 18 7 be 42 6 b 8 5 aPM-LS 95 a 99 a 98 a 142 a 58 a 95 a 10 9 a 14 7 a 13 9 a 19 3 abc 44 3 a 8 3 abPMA-ES 91 b 99 a 94 a 133 a 58 a 85 a 11 0 a 14 6 a 14 2 a 19 6 ab 42 1 b 8 1 abPMA-LS 96 a 99 a 96 a 139 a 57 a 85 a 11 0 a 14 8 a 14 2 a 20 0 a 42 0 b 8 3 abMeans within columns followed by the same letter do not differ at P = 0.05.^See Table 1 for test description and abbreviation meaning and Table 2 for dates.Table 5. Weed control, soybean stand, seed weight and soybean yield, by fall tillage methodand number of spring diskings. Test 2, MAFES Delta Branch, 1978-80.-^*-''ItemWeed control1978 1979 1980Soybean stand Seed weight Soybean yield1978 1979 1980 1978 1979 1980 1978 1979 1980—1000 plants/Acre —i;/100— bu/Acre-2TillageD 91 b 95 a 93 a 129 a 55 a 71 b 10 1 a 15 1 a 13 .6 a 18 .2 a 42.6 a 8 3 aC 94 a 57 a 95 a 126 a 53 a 87 a 10 2 a 15 3 a 13 4 a 16 .6 a 41.2 a 8 3 aSC 94 a 95 a 95 a 132 a 57 a 83 a 10 4 a 15 1 a 13 .5 a 18 .8 a 41.2 a 8 3 aNo. ofDiskings0 89 b 95 a 92 a 125 a 62 a 73 a 10 1 a 14 9 b 13 7 a 16 3 b 44.1 a 8 7 a1 95 a 96 a 96 a 131 a 54 b 87 a 10 1 a 15 3 a 13 4 a 18 7 a 40.5 b 8 7 a2 96 a 95 a 96 a 130 a 50 b 80 a 10 4 a 15 3 a 13 4 a 18 5 a 40.3 b 7 5 aMeans within columns followed by the same letter do not differ at P = 0.05.^See Table 1 for test description and abbreviation meaning and Table 2 for dates.5Literature Cited1. Heatherly, Larry G. 1981. Soy-bean response to tillage ofSharkey clay soil. MAFES Bull.892. 6 pp. 4.2. Heatherly, Larry G. 1981. Eval-uation of seeding rates for soy-beans in the Delta of Missis-sippi. Miss. Agric. and Forest. 5.Exp. Stn. Res. Rpt. 6(10): 4 pp.3. Pettiet, J. V. 1974. Soil factorsthat limit crop production on 6.certain Yazoo-Mississippi Deltasoils. MAFES Tech. Bull. 64. 18pp.Tupper, G. R. 1974. Design ofthe Stoneville Parabolic Sub-soiler. MAFES Info. Sheet 1249.3 pp.Tupper, G. R. 1977. Design ofthe Stoneville Parabolic Chisel.MAFES Info. Sheet 1277. 4 pp.Tupper, G. R. 1978. Soybeanresponse to deep tillage methodand date on a silty clay soil.MAFES Res. Rpt. 4(4): 4 pp.7. Tupper, G. R. and W. L. Barren-tine. 1979. Design of the Stone-ville Parabolic Super Chisel.MAFES Info. Sheet 1291. 2 pp.8. Vanderford, H. B. 1975. Soilsand land resources of Missis-sippi. Miss. Agric. and For. Expt.Stn., Miss. State, MS. 133 pp.This research was supported inpart by the Research Foundation, American Soybean AssociationProject No. 77-416-3.Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee orwarranty of the product by the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry ExperimentStation and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of otherproducts that also maybe suitable.Mississippi State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,(handicap.In conformity with Title IX ofthe Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 ofthe RehabUitation Act of 1973, ET. K. Martin, Vice President, 610 Allen Hall, P. O. Drawer J, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762, office telephoinumber 325-3221, has been designated as the responsible employee to coordinate efforts to carry out responabiUtiand make investigation of complaints relating to nondiscrimination.

Tillage and weed control practices in soybeans grown on Sharkey clay soil

https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1859&context=mafes-bulletins

Tillage and weed control practices in soybeans grown on Sharkey clay soil

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University Institutional Repository