Abstract
Certain winter annual weeds have been documented as alternative hosts to soybean cyst nematode (SCN), and infestations by such species are common in no-till production fields in the midwestern United States of Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. The objective of this research was to determine the influence of crop rotation and winter annual weed management on winter weed growth, SCN population density, and crop yield. Two crop rotations (SS and soybean–corn rotation) and six winter annual weed-management systems (autumn-applied herbicide, spring-applied herbicide, autumn + spring applied herbicides, autumn-seeded Italian ryegrass, autumn-seeded wheat, and a nontreated check) were evaluated in long-term, no-tillage systems at West Lafayette, IN, and Vincennes, IN. In the fourth and fifth years of these experiments, the 2-yr corn–soybean rotation generally resulted in increased soybean yield, decreased winter annual weed growth, and reduced SCN population density compared with SS. Autumn or spring herbicide applications or both were a more effective option than cover crops at reducing winter annual weed density. Cover-crop systems generally did not differ from the nontreated check in winter weed density. Between years three and five, winter annual weed SCN hosts in nontreated check plots increased approximately threefold to levels as high as 102 and 245 plants m −2 at West Lafayette, IN, and Vincennes, IN, respectively, which are infestation levels at or above those commonly observed in production fields. However, controlling winter annual weeds did not influence crop yields or SCN population density. The results of these studies suggest that winter weed management, even at the high levels of weed infestation present in these studies, appears to have little value as a tool for SCN management in corn and soybean production systems in the midwestern United States.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Corn–soybean rotation increased soybean yield compared with continuous soybean.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- 2-yr corn–soybean rotatione0
- Outcome
- soybean yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- SSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 2-yr corn–soybean rotation generally resulted in increased soybean yield, decreased winter annual weed growth, and reduced SCN population density compared with SS”
t0“Soybean Cyst Nematode”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn–soybean rotation decreased winter annual weed growth compared with continuous soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- 2-yr corn–soybean rotatione0
- Interactor
- winter annual weede0weed
- Outcome
- winter annual weed growthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- SSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 2-yr corn–soybean rotation generally resulted in increased soybean yield, decreased winter annual weed growth, and reduced SCN population density compared with SS”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn–soybean rotation reduced soybean cyst nematode population density compared with continuous soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- 2-yr corn–soybean rotatione0
- Interactor
- SCNe0pathogen
- Outcome
- SCN population densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- SSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the 2-yr corn–soybean rotation generally resulted in increased soybean yield, decreased winter annual weed growth, and reduced SCN population density compared with SS”
Claim · model-written summary
Autumn or spring herbicide reduced winter weed density more effectively than cover crops.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Autumn or spring herbicide applicationse0
- Interactor
- winter annual weede0weed
- Outcome
- winter annual weed densitye0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Comparator
- cover cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Autumn or spring herbicide applications or both were a more effective option than cover crops at reducing winter annual weed density”
t0“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops generally did not differ from untreated plots in winter weed density.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Cover-crop systemse0
- Interactor
- winter weede0weed
- Outcome
- winter weed densitye0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- nontreated checke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cover-crop systems generally did not differ from the nontreated check in winter weed density”
t0“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter annual weed SCN hosts in untreated plots increased approximately threefold from years three to five.
Verbatim
e0“Between years three and five, winter annual weed SCN hosts in nontreated check plots increased approximately threefold to levels as high as 102 and 245 plants m −2 at West Lafayette, IN, and Vincennes, IN, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter annual weed SCN hosts reached 102 plants m −2 at West Lafayette.
Verbatim
e0“winter annual weed SCN hosts in nontreated check plots increased approximately threefold to levels as high as 102 and 245 plants m −2 at West Lafayette, IN, and Vincennes, IN, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter annual weed SCN hosts reached 245 plants m −2 at Vincennes.
Verbatim
e0“winter annual weed SCN hosts in nontreated check plots increased approximately threefold to levels as high as 102 and 245 plants m −2 at West Lafayette, IN, and Vincennes, IN, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlling winter annual weeds did not influence crop yields.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- controlling winter annual weedse0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“controlling winter annual weeds did not influence crop yields or SCN population density”
t0“Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlling winter annual weeds did not influence SCN population density.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- controlling winter annual weedse0
- Interactor
- SCNe0pathogen
- Outcome
- SCN population densitye0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“controlling winter annual weeds did not influence crop yields or SCN population density”
t0“Soybean”
The same questions in other papers
rotation · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →rotation · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →cover crop · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →rotation · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
140 papers more in this group
See all 144 papers →herbicide · weed · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
257 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 13 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
293 papers more in this group
See all 297 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.