Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Chemical and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max)
Ist Teil von
Julius-Kühn-Archiv, 2016-02 (452), p.171-176
Ort / Verlag
Julius Kühn-Institut
Erscheinungsjahr
2016
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Beschreibungen/Notizen
In this study we investigated the possibility of chemical and mechanical weed control strategies in soybean. Soybean field experiments were carried out in 2013 and 2014 in Southern Germany. Five treatments including common herbicide mixtures and four mechanical weed control treatments, implementing a harrow and a hoe, were tested at different locations. In the herbicide experiments two treatments were applied by PRE emergence herbicides (metribuzin, clomazone, dimethenamid and metribuzin, flufenacet, clomazone) and another two treatments were sprayed with a combination of PRE + POST emergence herbicides (metribuzin, flufenacet, thifensulfuron and pendimethalin, thifensulfuron, bentazone, cycloxydim). Furthermore, a POST herbicide treatment was implemented (thifensulfuron, bentazone, thifensulfuron and fluazifop-P-butyl). In the mechanical weed control experiments, treatments were: three times hoeing, PRE emergence harrowing plus three times hoeing, hoeing and harrowing in rotation or three times harrowing. In both experiments an untreated control was included. A 90% weed control efficacy and 23% yield increase was observed in the POST herbicide treatment. PRE + POST treatments resulted in 92% to 99% weed control efficiency and 15% yield increase compared to the untreated control. In the mechanical weed control experiments the combination of PRE emergence harrowing and POST emergence hoeing resulted in 82% weed control efficiency and 34% higher yield compared to the untreated control. Less weed control efficiency (72%) was observed in the harrow treatment, leading to 20% higher yield compared to the control. The suitability of both strategies for implementation in “Integrated Weed Management” has been investigated.