2008
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2007.0135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fungicide Application Timing and Row Spacing Effect on Soybean Canopy Penetration and Grain Yield

Abstract: Indicates a least-squares means within a row are different within their location (P ≤ 0.05).* Indicates a least-squares means within a row are different within their location (P ≤ 0.05). † Least-squares means followed by the same letter within a column are not different (P ≤ 0.05).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
31
2
5

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
31
2
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Th e results indicate that soybean has the greatest yield potential in 0.19 m rows at seeding rates of 420,000 seeds ha −1 in this study. In addition to crop growth and yield potential, however, equipment costs (De Bruin and Pedersen, 2008a), prevalence of Sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) or white mold (Grau and Radke, 1984), wheeltrack damage from postemergence pesticide applications (Hanna et al, 2008), and weed competitiveness at diff erent row spacing (Norsworthy and Frederick, 2002) also infl uence optimum soybean row spacing in a particular environment. Furthermore, optimum economic seeding rates are oft en less than seeding rates that result in maximum yield because of the high costs of soybean seed (Lee et al, 2008;De Bruin and Pedersen, 2008b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Th e results indicate that soybean has the greatest yield potential in 0.19 m rows at seeding rates of 420,000 seeds ha −1 in this study. In addition to crop growth and yield potential, however, equipment costs (De Bruin and Pedersen, 2008a), prevalence of Sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) or white mold (Grau and Radke, 1984), wheeltrack damage from postemergence pesticide applications (Hanna et al, 2008), and weed competitiveness at diff erent row spacing (Norsworthy and Frederick, 2002) also infl uence optimum soybean row spacing in a particular environment. Furthermore, optimum economic seeding rates are oft en less than seeding rates that result in maximum yield because of the high costs of soybean seed (Lee et al, 2008;De Bruin and Pedersen, 2008b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a 4-yr study in southern Wisconsin (Pedersen and Lauer, 2003), average yields did not diff er among the three row spacings, but an interaction with years was observed with soybean in 0.19 m rows yielding greater in 2 yr and soybean in 0.38 m rows yielding greater in 1 yr. Janovicek et al (2006) reported soybean in 0.19 m rows yielded 13% more compared with 0.76 m rows under moldboard plow and no-tillage systems, but yielded only 4% more under moldboard plow and the same under no-till compared with 0.38 m rows in a 3-yr study at three locations in Ontario, Canada. In an Indiana study at three locations (Hanna et al, 2008), soybean in 0.19 vs. 0.38 m rows yielded 9% more in the absence of wheel-track damage associated with postemergence pesticide applications, but yielded the same in the presence of wheel-track damage. Results from the more recent studies in northern latitudes indicate no consistent yield advantage for drilled soybean in 0.19 m rows compared to 0.38 m rows.…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%
“…P. pachyrhizi is an invasive fungal disease that can signiÞcantly reduce soybean yield (Kawuki et al 2003, Miles et al 2003. In the absence of P. pachyrhizi, inconsistent but positive yield responses are possible with the application of fungicide (Hanna et al 2008) through control of various (or multiple) fungal pathogens present in North America soybean (Dashiell and Akem 1991). As a result, growers are increasingly exposed to marketing promotions that advise the application of tankmixed pesticides (fungicides and insecticides) based on a calendar date or plant growth stage.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dentre as práticas de manejo, o arranjo espacial das plantas pode afetar expressivamente a velocidade de fechamento das entre linhas (SHAW; WEBER, 1967;HEIFFIG et al, 2006), a produção de massa seca (COX; CHERNEY, 2011), a arquitetura das plantas (COX; CHERNEY; SHIELDS, 2010), a severidade de doenças (LIMA et al, 2012) e a produtividade de grãos da cultura (BRUIN;PEDERSEN, 2008;HANNA et al, 2008;RAMBO et al, 2003RAMBO et al, , 2004. Isso ocorre porque o arranjo de plantas influencia na competição intraespecífica e, consequentemente, na quantidade de recursos do ambiente -água, luz e nutrientes -disponíveis para cada planta.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified