The effects of planting arrangement and phosphate biofertilizer on soybean under different weed interference periods

G. R. MOHAMMADI, S. CHATRNOUR, S. JALALI-HONARMAND, D. KAHRIZI

Abstract


This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of planting  arrangement and phosphate biofertilizer on soybean yield and  yield components under different weed interference periods at the  Agricultural Research Farm of Razi University, Kermanshah,  west Iran. The experiment was a factorial with three factors  arranged in a randomized complete block design with four  replications. The first factor wa s planting arrangement (50 and 5  cm (P1) or 25 and 10 cm (P2) for inter-row and inter-plant  spacings, respectively), the second factor was phosphate  biofertilizer (no-inoculation (I0 ) and inoculation (I1)) and the  third factor was weed treatment (full season weed-free condition  (W0), weedy condition until soybean 4-trifoliate stage (W1), weedy condition until soybean flowering stage (W2) and full  season weedy condition (W3)). Resu lts revealed that the highest  soybean yield occurred when weeds were controlled throughout  the growing season and soybean was planted at the inter-row and  inter-plant spacings of 25 and 10 cm, respectively (P2) whether  phosphate biofertilizer was used or not. For both planting  arrangements, full season weedy condition at the lack of the  biofertilizer led to the lowest soybean yield produced. Weed  biomass was not significantly affected by use of biofertilizer. The  highest weed biomass was established in plots without weed  control throughout the whole growing season and soybean was  planted in a wider row spacing and a less uniform spatial  arrangement (P1). Moreover, For W2 and W3 treatments, soybean  planted in a narrower row spacing and a more uniform spatial  arrangement (P2) produced a notable lower weed biomass, so that,  this planting arrangement reduced weed biomass by 31.8 and  31.7 % in W2 and W3, respectively as compared to the P1  planting arrangement. It can be co ncluded that soybean planting in  a more uniform spatial arrangement via a narrower row spacing  can significantly improve soybean yield and suppress weeds.  Phosphate biofertilizer had no sign ificant effect on soybean yield  when soybean was planted as the P2 and weeds were controlled  throughout the growing season  


Keywords


soybeans; Glycine max; phosphate fertilizers; biofertilizers; spacing; planting; weed control; crop management; crop yield

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bhowmik P.C. and Doll J.D. 1982. Corn and soybean response to allelopathic effects of weed and crop residues. Agron J. 74: 601-606, doi: 10.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400040005x

Buhler D.D. and Hartzler R.G. 2004. Weed biology and management. In: Boerma, H.R., Specht, J.E. (Eds.), Soybeans: Improvement, Production and Uses. 3rd ed., Series Agronomy, No. 16. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 883–918

Carlson, H. L. and Hill J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition in spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34: 29–33

Cox, W.J., S. Kalange, D.J.R. Cherney and Reid W.S. 1993. Growth, yield and quality of forage maize under different N management practices. Agron. J. 85: 341-347, doi: 10.2134/agronj1993.00021962008500020033x

Day, R.W. and G.P. Quinn 1989. Comparison of treatments after an analysis of variance in ecology Ecological Monographs, 59: 433-463, doi: 10.2307/1943075

Daynard, T. B., J. W. Tanner and G. Duncan 1971. Duration of the grain filling period and its relation to grain yield in corn, Zea mays L. Crop Sci. 11: 45–48, doi: 10.2135/cropsci1971.0011183X001100010015x

De Freitas, J.R., Banerjee, M.R., Germida, J.J. 1997. Phosphatesolubilizing rhizobacteria enhance the growth and yield but not phosphorus uptake of canola (Brassica napus L.). Biology and Fertility of Soils 24: 358–364, doi: 10.1007/s003740050258

Deinum, B.R.D. Sulastri, M.H.J. Zeinab and A. Maassen. 1996. Effects of light intensity on growth, anatomy and forage quality of two tropical grasses (Brachiaria brizantha and anicum maximum var. trichoglume). Neth J Agric Sci 44: 111–124

Di Tomaso J.M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43: 491-497

Dong M. and Pierdominici M.G. 1995. Morphology and growth of stolons and rhizomes in three clonal grasses, as affected by different light supply. Vegetatio 116: 25–32

Draper S.R. 1985. Internatio nal rules for seed testing. Seed Sci Technol 13: 342-343

Duponnois, R., Colombet, A., Hien, V. and Thioulouse, J. 2005. The mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices and rock phosphate amendment influence plant growth and microbial activity in the rhizosphere of Acacia holosericea. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37, 1460–1468, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.09.016

Evans S.P. , Knezevic S.Z., Shapiro C. and Lindquist J.L. 2003. Nitrogen level affects critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci 51: 408-417, doi: 10.1614/0043- 1745(2003)051[0408:NAITCP]2.0.CO;2

Fernandez, O.N., O.R. Vignolio and E.C. Requesens 2002. Competition between corn (Zea mays) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in relation to the crop plant arrangement, Agronomie, 22: 293-305, doi: 10.1051/agro:2002015

Johnson, G.A., Hoverstad, T.H. and Greenwald, R.E. 1997. Integrated weed management using narrow row crop spacing, herbicides and cultivation.Agron.J. 90, 40–46, doi: 10.2134/agronj1998.00021962009000010008x

Knezevic, S.Z., Evans, S.P., Blankenship, E.E., Van Acker, R.C. and Lindquist, J.L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50: 773-786, doi: 10.1614/0043- 1745(2002)050[0773:CPFWCT]2.0.CO;2

Kristensen L., Olsen J. and Weiner J. 2008. Crop density, sowing pattern, and nitrogen fertilization effects on weed suppression and yield in spring wheat. Weed Sci. 56: 97-102, doi: 10.1614/WS-07-065.1

Mittal, V., O. Singh, H. Nayyar, J. Kaur and R. Tewari 2008. Stimulatory effect of phosphate-solubilizing fungal strains (Aspergillus awamori and Penicillium citrinum) on the yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. cv. GPF2). Soil Biol. Biochem., 40: 718-727, doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.10.008

Mohammadi, G. R., M. E. Ghobadi and S. Sheikheh Poor. 2012. Phosphate biofertilizer, row spacing and plant density effects on corn (Zea mays L.) yield and weed growth. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 3: 425-429, doi: 10.4236/ajps.2012.34051

Ogbo, F.C. 2010. Conversion of cassava wastes for biofertilizer production using phosphate solubilizing fungi. Bioresource Technology 101: 4120–4124, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.057

Olsen, J. and J. Weiner. 2007. The influence of Triticum aestivum density, sowing pattern and nitrogen fertilization on leaf area index and its spatial variation. Basic Appl. Ecol. 8: 252–257, doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2006.03.013

Olsen, J., L. Kristensen, an d J. Weiner. 2005a. Effects of density and spatial pattern of winter wheat on suppression of different weed species. Weed Sci. 53: 690–694, doi: 10.1614/WS-04-144R2.1

Olsen, J., L. Kristensen, J. Weiner, and H.-W. Griepentrog. 2005b. Increased density and spatial uniformity increases weed suppression by spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Res. 45: 316– 321, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2005.00456.x

Omar, S.A., 1998. The role of rock phosphate solubilizing fungi and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM) in growth of wheat plants fertilized with rock phosphate. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 14: 211–219, doi: 10.1023/A:1008830129262

Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration, and yield in corn. Agron J. 81: 167- 174, doi: 10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100020006x

Peterson, D.A., Nalewaja, J.D. 1992. Environment influences green foxtail competition with wheat. Weed Technol. 6: 607–610.

Prostko, E.P., Meade, J.A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 541–545.

Rice, E.L. 1984. Allelopathy. Orlando, Florida, Academic Press (Second Edition), 422 pp.

SAS Institute, 2003. SAS/STAT. User’s Guide. Version 9.1. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.

Steckel, L.E., Defelice, M.S. and Sims, B.D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 541–545

Stockle, C.O., Martin, S.A. and Campbell, G.S. 1994. CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation model: water/nitrogen budgets and crop yield. Agric. Sys. 46: 335–359, doi: 10.1016/0308-521X(94)90006-2

Swanton, C.J. and Weise, S.F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5: 657-663

Tetio-Kagho F. and Gardner F.P. 1988. Responses of maize to plant population density: I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron J. 80: 930-935, doi: 10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000060018x

Valverde, A., Burgos, A., Fiscella, T., Rivas, R., Velazquez, E., Rodriguez, C. and Igual, J.M. 2006. Differential effects of co inoculations with Pseudomonas jessenii PS06 (a phosphate solubilizing bacterium) and Mesorhizobium ciceri c-2/2 strains on the growth and seed yield of chickpea under greenhouse and field conditions. Plant and Soil 287: 43–50, doi: 10.1007/s11104- 006-9057-8

Vassilev, N., Medina, A., Azcon, R. and Vassilev, M. 2006. Microbial solubilization of rock phosphate on media containing agro-indust rial wastes and effect of the resulting products on plant growth and P- uptake. Plant and Soil 287: 77–84, doi: 10.1007/s11104-006-9054-y

Vollmann, J., Wagentristl, H. and Hartl, W. 2010. The effects of simulated weed pressure on early maturity soybeans. Eur J Agron 32: 243-248, doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2010.01.001

Weaver, S.E., Kropff, M.J. and Groeneveld, R.M.W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci 40: 302-307

Weiner, J., H. W. Griepentrog, and L. Kristensen. 2001. Suppression of weeds by spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 784–790, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00634.x

Williams, J.R., Jones, C.A., Kiniry, J.R. and Spanel, D.A. 1989. The EPIC crop growth model. Trans. ASAE, 32: 497–511, doi: 10.13031/2013.31032




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14720/aas.2015.105.2.14

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2015 Acta agriculturae Slovenica

 

Acta agriculturae Slovenica is an Open Access journal published under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License.

                            


ISSN 1581-9175     eISSN 1854-1941