Abstract
Abstract North Carolina soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] growers use a diverse range of row spacings, commonly between 7.5 and 38 inches. Research findings regarding the effect of row spacing on soybean yield have been inconsistent and influenced by factors such as planting date and environmental conditions. Although small‐plot data from North Carolina often indicates that narrower row spacings lead to higher yields, growers have raised concerns about the potential benefits of wide rows when ripping is employed in environments exhibiting symptoms of subsurface compaction. Research was conducted over 2 years (2021–2022) in the Coastal Plain region to evaluate the effects of wide row ripped spacing (36 or 38 inches) compared to un‐ripped narrower spacing (15 inches) on plant population, canopy cover, soil compaction, and yield across four environments. One of the environments included an additional treatment with an un‐ripped drilled row spacing of 7.5 inches. Although seeding rates were calibrated similarly, the ripped wide‐row spacing treatments led to lower achieved plant population, predominantly due to adverse seed bed conditions resulting in lower germination caused by the inline ripper. The un‐ripped narrow row spacings (7.5 and 15 inches) consistently demonstrated 7–25% greater canopy cover than ripped wider spacings (36 and 38 inches) by the flowering stage (R1). Soil penetration resistance varied by row spacing in only two environments, with differences generally lacking agronomic significance (i.e., penetration resistance <2 MPa). Yield results indicated no significant effect of row spacing in three out of four environments; in the fourth environment, the un‐ripped 15‐inch row spacing yielded significantly more than both the un‐ripped drilled and ripped wide‐row soybeans. In the environments in this study, wide‐row ripped treatments offered no agronomical advantage over narrow row un‐ripped treatments.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Ripped wide rows reduced achieved soybean plant population through poorer seed bed conditions and germination.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- ripped wide‐row spacing treatmentse0
- Outcome
- achieved plant populatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- adverse seed bed conditions resulting in lower germination caused by the inline rippere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the ripped wide‐row spacing treatments led to lower achieved plant population, predominantly due to adverse seed bed conditions resulting in lower germination caused by the inline ripper.”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Unripped 7.5 and 15 inch rows had 7–25% greater canopy cover than ripped 36 and 38 inch rows at flowering.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Organ / stage
- flowering stage (R1)e0
- Treatment
- un‐ripped narrow row spacings (7.5 and 15 inches)e0
- Outcome
- canopy covere0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 7–25%e0
- Comparator
- ripped wider spacings (36 and 38 inches)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The un‐ripped narrow row spacings (7.5 and 15 inches) consistently demonstrated 7–25% greater canopy cover than ripped wider spacings (36 and 38 inches) by the flowering stage (R1).”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil penetration resistance varied by row spacing in two environments, generally below the agronomic threshold.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Soil penetration resistance varied by row spacing in only two environments, with differences generally lacking agronomic significance (i.e., penetration resistance <2 MPa).”
Claim · model-written summary
Row spacing had no significant soybean yield effect in three of four environments.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- row spacinge0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Qualifier
- three out of four environmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield results indicated no significant effect of row spacing in three out of four environments”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
In the fourth environment, unripped 15 inch rows yielded significantly more than unripped drilled rows.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- un‐ripped 15‐inch row spacinge0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Qualifier
- fourth environmente0
- Comparator
- un‐ripped drillede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the fourth environment, the un‐ripped 15‐inch row spacing yielded significantly more than both the un‐ripped drilled and ripped wide‐row soybeans.”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
In the fourth environment, unripped 15 inch rows yielded significantly more than ripped wide rows.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- un‐ripped 15‐inch row spacinge0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Qualifier
- fourth environmente0
- Comparator
- ripped wide‐row soybeanse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the fourth environment, the un‐ripped 15‐inch row spacing yielded significantly more than both the un‐ripped drilled and ripped wide‐row soybeans.”
t0“soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Wide ripped rows offered no agronomic advantage over narrow unripped rows in the studied environments.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- wide‐row ripped treatmentse0
- Outcome
- no agronomical advantagee0
- Comparator
- narrow row un‐ripped treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wide‐row ripped treatments offered no agronomical advantage over narrow row un‐ripped treatments.”
t0“soybean”
The same questions in other papers
density · pest · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →density · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
206 papers in the same direction as this paper · 94 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
301 papers more in this group
See all 305 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.