Interference of a weed community in the soybean crop in functions of sowing spacing

Hermeson dos Santos Vitorino, Antonio Carlos da Silva Junior, Clebson Gomes Gonçalves, Dagoberto Martins


The use of double row spacing on soybean crop is recent and consists of a new soybean production technology in Brazil and worldwide, so weed interference may be different in relation to single crop row. Thus, the objective of this work was to evaluate the weed interference in soybean crop in function of sowing spacing. The experimental design was randomized blocks and treatments were arranged in a factorial (2x16): two spacings, a double row spacing [(0.20 x 0.20m) x 0.67 m] and a conventional single row spacing (0.45 x 0.45m) and sixteen periods of weed management, being eight control periods in which soybean was kept free of weeds by increasing periods of 7; 14; 21; 28; 35; 42; 49 and 145 days after emergence and eight coexistence periods, when the crop was maintained in the presence of the weed community for the same periods. The Critical Timing of Weed Removal (CTWR) was lower in the double row spacing, with eight days, compared with single spacing that was of 18 days. The Critical Weed-Free Period (CWFP) was of 36 and 31 days for double and single row spacing, respectively, and the emergence of weeds after this period did not cause damage to the productivity, but the Critical Period of Weed Control (CPWC) was higher in double row spacing (28 days) compared to the single row, which was of 13 days. The spacing in double row had a higher grain yield than the spacing in single row.


Critical Periods; Phytosociology; Glycine max; Weed Competition

Texto completo:



AGOSTINETTO, D. et al. Competition periods of crabgrass with rice and soybean crops. Planta Daninha, v. 32, n. 1, p. 31-38, 2014.

BIANCHI, M. A. et al. Plant arrangement and soybean cultivar roles in weed interference results. Planta Daninha, v. 28, n. 4, p. 979-991, 2010.

CALISKAN, S. et al. The effects of row spacing on yield and yield components of full season and double-cropped soybean. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Foresty, v. 31, n. 3, p. 147-154, 2007.

CARVALHO, L. B.; BIANCO, S.; GUZZO, C. D. Interference of Euphorbia heterophylla in the growth and macronutrient accumulation of soybean. Planta Daninha, v. 28, n. 1, p. 33-39, 2010.

CONSTANTIN, J. et al. Estimate of the period prior to weed interference in soybean (Glycine max), Variety Coodetec 202, through two–fold checks. Planta Daninha, v. 25, n. 2, p. 231-237, 2007.

DALLEY, C. D.; KELLS, J. J.; RENNER, K. A. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technology, v. 18, n. 1, p. 165-176, 2004.

EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA. Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. 3. ed. Brasília, 2013. 353 p.

FERREIRA, D. F. Sisvar: a computer statistical analysis system. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, v. 35, n. 6, p. 1039-1042, 2011.

GRIME, J. P. Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd ed., 2001. 417 p.

GUILHERME, F. A. G. Effects of the canopy cover on the density and height of understorey grasses and natural regeneration of woody species of a gallery forest in central Brazil. Cerne, v. 6, n. 1, p. 60-66, 2000.

KOZLOWSKI, L. A.; KOEHLER, H. S.; PITELLI, R. A. Times and extension of weed coexistence period of weeds interfering in corn (Zea mays) yield. Planta Daninha, v. 27, n. 3, p. 481-490, 2009.

MARTINS, D. Alexandergrass interference in soybean. Planta Daninha, v. 12, n. 2, p. 93-99, 1994.

MELO, H. B. et al. Weed interference in soybean crop cultivated in two row spacings. Planta Daninha, v. 19, p. 187-191, 2001.

MESCHEDE, D. K. et al. Period before weed interference in soybean: a case-study under low crop density and twofold checks. Planta Daninha, v. 22, n. 2, p. 239- 246, 2004.

NEPOMUCENO, M. et al. Periods of weed interference in soybean under tillage and no-tillage. Planta Daninha, v. 25, n. 1, p. 43-50, 2007.

PITELLI, R. A. Interference of weeds in crops. Informe Agropecuário, v. 11, n. 129, p. 16-27, 1985.

RAMBO, L. et al. Soybean yield response to plant arrangement. Ciência Rural, v. 33, n. 3, p. 405-411, 2003.

RODRIGUES, A. C. P. et al. Weed interference periods in sorghum crop. Planta Daninha, v. 28, p. 23-31, 2010.

SILVA, A. F. et al. Period before interference in soybean-RR crop under low, medium and high infestation level conditions. Planta Daninha, v. 27, n. 1, p. 57-66, 2009.

SILVA, J. I. C. et al. Períodos de interferência de plantas daninhas na cultura do girassol. Bioscence Journal, v. 29, n. 5, p. 1255-1266, 2013.

SILVA, M. R. M; DURIGAN, J. C. Periodos de interferência das plantas daninhas na cultura do arroz de terras altas. I - Cultivar IAC 202. Planta Daninha, v. 24, n. 4, p. 685-694, 2006.

Revista Ciência Agronômica ISSN 1806-6690 (online) 0045-6888 (impresso), Site:, e-mail: - Fone: (85) 3366.9702 - Expediente: 2ª a 6ª feira - de 7 às 17h.