Strip‐till, other management strategies, and their interactive effects on corn grain and soybean seed yield

Potratz, Derek J.; Mourtzinis, Spyridon; Gaska, John; Lauer, Joseph G.; Arriaga, Francisco J.; Conley, Shawn P.

doi:10.1002/agj2.20067

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research with similar methodology for assessing crop canopy cover observed 1.5% lower canopy cover in soybean at the V2 growth stage from sulfentrazone applied preemergence (Arsenijevic et al 2021). Similar methodology for canopy assessment observed variation in time to reach 50% soybean canopy cover between strip-till and no-till depending on year (Potratz et al 2020). Early-season soybean canopy cover was greatest in soil management with tillage for most site-years in this study.…”

Section: Soybean Experimentssupporting

confidence: 65%

“…A 0.09-m 2 quadrat was used to delineate the area used for canopy assessment. Photos of three random locations in each cover crop plot were collected with a smartphone camera and analyzed with Canopeo Software (Oklahoma State University, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Soil Physics program, Stillwater, OK; https://canopeoapp.com) to determine percent green canopy cover from each subsample (0% to 100%, with no green canopy at 0% and complete canopy cover at 100%) using default settings (red/green: 0.95; blue/green; 0.95, noise reduction: 100) (Arsenijevic et al 2021;Patrignani and Ochsner 2015;Potratz et al 2020;Ribeiro et al 2021). The percentage of canopy cover used for analysis was determined for each plot by calculating the average percent canopy cover from the three photos.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Canopy assessments in this study varied greatly across site-years when using the crop growth stage for assessment. Collecting crop canopy samples at a predetermined time in relation to crop planting (Arsenijevic et al 2021) or tracking differences in canopy cover until reaching a target percent canopy cover (Potratz et al 2020) could be a better indicator of treatment differences in canopy development. Visible crop injury was absent or too inconsistent to be used for analysis in all experiments, so data are not shown.…”

Section: Corn Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Low carryover risk of corn and soybean herbicides across soil management practices and environments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbicides with soil-residual activity have the potential for carryover into subsequent crops, resulting in injury to sensitive crops and limiting productivity if severe. The increased use of soil residual herbicides in the United States for management of troublesome weeds in corn and soybean cropping systems has potential to result in more cases of carryover. Soil management practices have different effects on the soil environment, potentially influencing herbicide degradation and likelihood of carryover. Field experiments were conducted at three sites in 2019 and 2020 to determine the effects of corn (clopyralid and mesotrione) and soybean (fomesafen and imazethapyr) herbicides applied in the fall at reduced rates (25% and 50% of labeled rates) and three soil management practices (tillage, no-tillage, and a fall established cereal rye cover crop) on subsequent growth and productivity of the cereal rye cover crop and the soybean and corn crops, respectively. Most response variables (cereal rye biomass and crop canopy cover at cover crop termination in the spring, early season crop stand, and herbicide injury ratings, and crop yield) were not affected by herbicide carryover. Corn yield was lower when soil was managed with a cereal rye cover crop compared to tillage at all three sites while yield was lower for no-till compared to tillage at two sites. Soybean yield was lower when managed with a cereal rye cover crop compared to tillage and no-till at one site. Findings from this research indicate a low carryover risk for these herbicides across site-years when label rotational restrictions are followed and environmental conditions favorable for herbicide degradation exist, regardless of soil management practice on silt loam or silty clay loam soil types in the Midwest U.S. region.

show abstract

Section: Soybean Experimentssupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Corn Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low carryover risk of corn and soybean herbicides across soil management practices and environments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The camera was adjusted to square mode in order to produce a repeatable image frame with its lens centered in between the two soybean rows and perpendicular to the ground. Images were edited to remove green area from weeds and then batch analyzed for green area cover using Canopeo (Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK) add-on within Matlab (The Math Works, Inc., Natick, MA) (Arsenijevic et al, 2020;Potratz et al, 2020). Default Canopeo settings were used (Red/Green: 0.95, Blue/Green: 0.95, Noise reduction: 100) to maintain continuity across analyses.…”

Section: Weed and Crop Developmental Stage At Post Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Postemergence Dicamba/Glyphosate Timing and Inclusion of Acetochlor as a Layered Residual on Weed Control and Soybean Yield

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® [glyphosate- and dicamba-resistant (DR)] soybean is a novel trait option for postemergence (POST) control of herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds in soybean. With increased use of labeled dicamba products POST in DR soybean and recommendations to include a soil-residual herbicide POST (e.g., layered residual approach), research on how combinations of these approaches influence weed control, weed seed production, and soybean grain yield is warranted. The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of (1) flumioxazin applied preemergence (PRE) followed by (fb) dicamba plus glyphosate applied POST at different crop developmental stages and (2) acetochlor POST as a layered residual approach on weed control, weed seed production, and soybean yield to determine the optimal POST timing in DR soybean. A field study was conducted in Wisconsin at three sites in 2018 and four sites in 2019 to evaluate flumioxazin (43.4 g ai ha−1, WDG 51%) PRE fb dicamba (560 g ae ha−1, SL) plus glyphosate (1,101 g ae ha−1, SL) POST in DR soybean at three stages: early-POST (EPOST, V1-V2), mid-POST (MPOST, V3-V4), and late-POST (LPOST, V5-V6/R1) with or without a soil-residual herbicide POST (acetochlor, 1,262 g ai ha−1, ME). Weed community composition was site-specific; difficult-to-control broadleaf species included giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. Sauer]. Dicamba plus glyphosate applied MPOST and LPOST provided greater control, weed biomass reduction, and density reduction of giant ragweed and waterhemp when compared with EPOST treatments. Giant ragweed and waterhemp had not reached 100% cumulative emergence at EPOST, and plants that emerged after EPOST produced seed. There was some benefit to including acetochlor as a layered residual at EPOST as indicated by a residual by POST timing interaction for waterhemp density reduction. Complete waterhemp control was not attained at one site-year. For remaining site-years, dicamba plus glyphosate applied MPOST (V3-V4) provided season-long weed control, reduced weed seed production, and optimized soybean grain yield compared with other POST treatments. Results highlight the importance of timely POST applications and suggest utilization of a POST layered residual needs to be timed appropriately for the window of active weed species emergence.

show abstract

“…One of the objectives with tillage is increased spring soil warming, which can enhance corn establishment compared to no-till (Vetsch & Randall, 2002). Indeed, some previous studies comparing the effects between strip till and no-till on corn yield show increases of 4-6% with strip till in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois (Fernandez et al, 2012;Potratz et al, 2020;Vetsch & Randall, 2002). However, the yield benefit from strip till may not be universal, indicating that it may not be beneficial at every site (Viswakumar et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corn residue baling and grazing impacts on corn yield under irrigated conservation tillage systems

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop residue grazing or baling is common in the western Corn Belt. However, its impacts on subsequent crop yields under different irrigation levels and tillage systems are unclear. We investigated the impacts of corn (Zea mays L.) residue baling and cattle grazing on soil compaction, water content, and corn yield under full and limited irrigated no-till in Nebraska during three years. In Years 2 and 3, an additional tillage treatment (strip till) was implemented to evaluate its effects on grain yield under the above treatments. Residue removal effects on compaction and water content did not vary with irrigation level. Grazing (3.68 animal units ha −1 ) minimally impacted compaction and soil profile water content compared to no removal. Baling increased cone index by 34-53% in the 0-to-12.5-cm depth and decreased water content by 6 cm compared to no removal. Residue removal effects on yield did not depend on irrigation. Residue removal impacts depended on tillage in Year 3 only. Full irrigation increased corn yields up to 11% compared to limited irrigation. Strip till increased yield by 11% compared to no-till in Year 2 only. Baling and grazing had no effect on corn yield in Year 1, but baling and grazing increased yield by 9% compared to no removal in Year 2, likely due to lower water content. In Year 3, grazing and baling increased yield by 9% under no-till but not strip till. Overall, grazing had minimal impacts while baling increased yield and compaction and decreased water content with few variations due to irrigation or tillage. INTRODUCTIONBaling and grazing corn residues from the approximately 37 million hectares planted to corn (Zea mays L.) in the United States (USDA-NASS, 2017) are important to meet the need for animal feed and biofuel feedstocks. Corn residues are important feedstocks as pastureland shortages increase (Liebig et al., 2017). However, the amount of corn residue baled and grazed varies by region.

show abstract

Strip‐till, other management strategies, and their interactive effects on corn grain and soybean seed yield

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Low carryover risk of corn and soybean herbicides across soil management practices and environments

Low carryover risk of corn and soybean herbicides across soil management practices and environments

Influence of Postemergence Dicamba/Glyphosate Timing and Inclusion of Acetochlor as a Layered Residual on Weed Control and Soybean Yield

Corn residue baling and grazing impacts on corn yield under irrigated conservation tillage systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About