Bioeconomic Weed Management Models for Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Production

Weed Science ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 38 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 436-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Shribbs ◽  
Donald W. Lybecker ◽  
Edward E. Schweizer
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Survey ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Control Cost ◽  
Risk Levels ◽  
Management Models ◽  
Spreadsheet Models

Bioeconomic sugarbeet weed management models for preplant, postemergence, and layby herbicides, and late-season handweeding decisions are presented. The personal computer/spreadsheet models are based on number of weed seed in soil, field survey of weed populations, growth stages of weeds and sugarbeets, expected yield loss from weeds, herbicide weed control, weed control cost, and sugarbeet price. The models incorporate two producer risk levels. Several weed scenarios were used to verify the models for reasonable recommendations.

Potential yield loss in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with weed interference in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 624-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Phillip W. Stahlman ◽  
Curtis R. Thompson ◽  
Brent W. Bean ◽  
Nader Soltani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Grain Sorghum ◽  
Control Cost ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Weed Interference

AbstractPotential yield losses in grain sorghum due to weed interference based on quantitative data from the major grain sorghum-growing areas of the United States are reported by the WSSA Weed Loss Committee. Weed scientists and extension specialists who researched weed control in grain sorghum provided data on grain sorghum yield loss due to weed interference in their region. Data were requested from up to 10 individual experiments per calendar year over 10 yr between 2007 and 2016. Based on the summarized information, farmers in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas would potentially lose an average of 37%, 38%, 30%, 56%, 61%, and 60% of their grain sorghum yield with no weed control, and have a corresponding annual monetary loss of US $19 million, 302 million, 7 million, 32 million, 25 million, and 314 million, respectively. The overall average yield loss due to weed interference was estimated to be 47% for this grain sorghum-growing region. Thus, US farmers would lose approximately 5,700 million kg of grain sorghum valued at approximately US $953 million annually if weeds are not controlled. With each dollar invested in weed management (based on estimated weed control cost of US $100 ha−1), there would be a return of US $3.80, highlighting the return on investment in weed management and the importance of continued weed science research for sustaining high grain sorghum yield and profitability in the United States.

scholarly journals Weed Management in Corn

EDIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Ferrell ◽  
Gregory E. MacDonald ◽  
Pratap Devkota
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Corn Production ◽  
Late Season ◽  
Equipment Operation ◽  
Good Management

Successful weed control is essential for economical corn production in Florida. Weeds reduce corn yields by competing for moisture, nutrients, and light during the growing season and interfere with harvest. Producing a good corn crop is only half the battle and will not be profitable unless the corn can be harvested. Late-season weeds can result in excessive yield loss, inefficient equipment operation, and provide a source of weed seed for the following season. Weeds can be controlled in corn; however, this involves good management practices in all phases of corn production.https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wg007

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control (CPWC) in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan ISIK ◽  
Adem AKCA ◽  
Emine KAYA ALTOP ◽  
Nihat TURSUN ◽  
Husrev MENNAN
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Weed Interference

Accurate assessment of crop-weed control period is an essential part for planning an effective weed management for cropping systems. Field experiments were conducted during the seasonal growing periods of potato in 2012 and 2013 in Kayseri, Turkey to assess critical period for weed control (CPWC) in potato. A four parameter log-logistic model was used to assist in monitoring and analysing two sets of related, relative crop yield. Data was obtained during the periods of increased weed interference and as a comparison, during weed-free periods. In both years, the relative yield of potato decreased with a longer period of weed-interference whereas increased with increasing length of weed free period. In 2012, the CPWC ranged from 112 to 1014 GDD (Growing Degree Days) which corresponded to 8 to 66 days after crop emergence (DAE) and between 135-958 GDD (10 to 63 DAE) in the following year based on a 5% acceptable yield loss. Weed-free conditions needed to be established as early as the first week after crop emergence and maintained as late as ten weeks after crop emergence to avoid more than 5% yield loss in the potato. The results suggest that CPWC could well assist potato producers to significantly reduce the expense of their weed management programs as well as improving its efficacy.

Decision Rules for Postemergence Control of Pigweed (Amaranthusspp.) in Soybean (Glycine max)

Weed Science ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Dieleman ◽  
Allan S. Hamill ◽  
Glenn C. Fox ◽  
Clarence J. Swanton
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Control Function ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Control Decision

Weed control decision rules were derived for the application of postemergence herbicides to control pigweed species in soybean. Field experiments were conducted at two locations in 1992 and 1993 to evaluate soybean-pigweed interference. A damage function was determined that related yield loss to time of pigweed emergence, density, and soybean weed-free yield. A control function described pigweed species response to variable doses of imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. The integration of these two functions formed the basis of an economic model used to derive two weed control decision rules, the biologist's “threshold weed density” and the economist's “optimal dose.” Time of weed emergence had a more significant role than weed density in the economic model. Later-emerging pigweed caused less yield loss and therefore, decision rules lead to overuse of herbicides if emergence time is not considered. The selected herbicide dose influenced the outcome of the control function. Depending on the desired level of weed control, a herbicide could be chosen to either eradicate the escaped weed species (label or biologically-effective doses) or reduce the growth of the weed species and thereby offset interference (optimal dose). The development of a biologically-effective dose by weed species matrix was recommended. Decision rules should not be utilized as an exclusive weed management strategy but rather as a component of an integrated weed management program.

Weed Control Efficacy and Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Tolerance to Early Season Mechanical Weeding

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Vangessel ◽  
Lori J. Wiles ◽  
Edward E. Schweizer ◽  
Phil Westra
Keyword(s):  
Phaseolus Vulgaris ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Seed Weight ◽  
Growth Stage ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Control Efficacy ◽  
Pinto Bean

An integrated approach to weed management in pinto bean is needed since available herbicides seldom adequately control all weed species present in a field. A two-year study was conducted to assess weed control efficacy and pinto bean tolerance to mechanical weeding from a rotary hoe or flex-tine harrow at crook, unifoliolate, and trifoliolate stages of bean development. Weed control was similar for both implements and all timings in 1993. In 1994, mechanical weeding at trifoliolate and both crook and trifoliolate stages controlled more weeds than at other growth stages, regardless of type of implement. Using the flex-tine harrow reduced pinto bean stand, but results based on growth stage were not consistent each year. Damage to pinto bean hypocotyls and stems was observed with the flex-tine harrow used at both crook and trifoliolate stages in 1994. Rotary hoeing did not reduce pinto bean stand or cause injury. Yield and seed weight did not differ among treatments in either year.

Weed management options in transgenic stacked and non transgenic maize (Zea mays) hybrids-A review

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (04) ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Sivagamy ◽  
C. Chinnusamy ◽  
P. Parasuraman
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Growth ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Maize Crop ◽  
Weed Growth ◽  
Vigorous Growth

Weeds are generally hardy species having fast growth, deep root system and capable of competing very efficiently with cultivated crops for the available resources and adversely affect the crop growth and yield. Weed management systems that rely on post emergence control assume that crops can tolerate competition for certain periods of time without suffering yield losses. Initial slow growth particularly at early crop growth stages and wider plant spacing of maize crop encourages fast and vigorous growth of weeds. It is of paramount importance that, competition from weeds must be minimized to achieve optimum yield. Among the different weed control methods, chemical method bears many advantages in suppressing weed growth and to get healthy and vigorous crop stand. Non-selective herbicide molecules with a variety of mode of action were discovered, developed and marketed for successful weed control programme.

Field Pea and Lentil Tolerance to Interrow Cultivation

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Stanley ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe ◽  
Dilshan Benaragama ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S. N. Duddu
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Row Crops ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractInterrow cultivation is a selective, in-crop mechanical weed control tool that has the potential to control weeds later in the growing season with less crop damage compared with other in-crop mechanical weed control tools. To our knowledge, no previous research has been conducted on the tolerance of narrow-row crops to interrow cultivation. The objective of this experiment was to determine the tolerance of field pea and lentil to interrow cultivation. Replicated field experiments were conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2014 and 2015. Weekly cultivation treatments began at the 4-node stage of each crop, continuing for 6 wk. Field pea and lentil yield linearly declined with later crop stages of cultivation. Cultivating multiple times throughout the growing season reduced yield by 15% to 30% in both crops. Minimal yield loss occurred when interrow cultivation was conducted once at early growth stages of field pea and lentil; however, yield loss increased with delayed and more frequent cultivation events.

An Evaluation of Two Novel Cultivation Tools

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn J. Evans ◽  
Robin R. Bellinder ◽  
Russell R. Hahn
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Environmental Data ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Operational Parameters ◽  
Crop Response ◽  
Weed Growth ◽  
Operational Variables ◽  
Organic Weed Management

Cultivation is a critical component of organic weed management and has relevance in conventional farming. Limitations with current cultivation tools include high costs, limited efficacy, and marginal applicability across a range of crops, soil types, soil moisture conditions, and weed growth stages. The objectives of this research were to compare the weed control potential of two novel tools, a block cultivator and a stirrup cultivator, with that of a conventional S-tine cultivator, and to evaluate crop response when each tool was used in pepper and broccoli. Block and stirrup cultivators were mounted on a toolbar with an S-tine sweep. In 2008, the tripart cultivator was tested in 20 independently replicated noncrop field events. Weed survival and reemergence data were collected from the cultivated area of each of the three tools. Environmental data were also collected. A multivariable model was created to assess the importance of cultivator design and environmental and operational variables on postcultivation weed survival. Additional trials in 2009 evaluated the yield response of pepper and broccoli to interrow cultivations with each tool. Cultivator design significantly influenced postcultivation weed survival (P < 0.0001). When weed survival was viewed collectively across all 20 cultivations, both novel cultivators significantly increased control. Relative to the S-tine sweep, the stirrup cultivator reduced weed survival by about one-third and the block cultivator reduced weed survival by greater than two-thirds. Of the 11 individually assessed environmental and operational parameters, 7 had significant implications for weed control with the sweep; 5 impacted control with the stirrup cultivator, and only 1 (surface weed cover at the time of cultivation) influenced control with the block cultivator. Crop response to each cultivator was identical. The block cultivator, because of its increased effectiveness and operational flexibility, has the potential to improve interrow mechanical weed management.

scholarly journals Weed Control in Strawberry Provided by Shank- and Drip-applied Methyl Bromide Alternative Fumigants

HortScience ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.A. Fennimore ◽  
M.J. Haar ◽  
H.A. Ajwa
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Methyl Bromide ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Drip Irrigation ◽  
Irrigation System ◽  
Drip Irrigation System ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Metam Sodium ◽  
Polygonum Aviculare ◽  
Potential Alternative

The loss of methyl bromide (MB) as a soil fumigant has created the need for new weed management systems for crops such as strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa Duchesne). Potential alternative chemicals to replace methyl bromide fumigation include 1,3-D, chloropicrin (CP), and metam sodium. Application of emulsified formulations of these fumigants through the drip irrigation system is being tested as an alternative to the standard shank injection method of fumigant application in strawberry production. The goal of this research was to evaluate the weed control efficacy of alternative fumigants applied through the drip irrigation system and by shank injection. The fumigant 1,3-D in a mixture with CP was drip-applied as InLine (60% 1,3-D plus 32% CP) at 236 and 393 L·ha-1 or shank injected as Telone C35 (62% 1,3-D plus 35% CP) at 374 L·ha-1. Chloropicrin (CP EC, 95%) was drip-applied singly at 130 and 200 L·ha-1 or shank injected (CP, 99%) at 317 kg·ha-1. Vapam HL (metam sodium 42%) was drip-applied singly at 420 and 700 L·ha-1. InLine was drip-applied at 236 and 393 L·ha-1, and then 6 d later followed by (fb) drip-applied Vapam HL at 420 and 700 L·ha-1, respectively. CP EC was drip-applied simultaneously with Vapam HL at 130 plus 420 L·ha-1 and as a sequential application at 200 fb 420 L·ha-1, respectively. Results were compared to the commercial standard, MB : CP mixture (67:33) shank-applied at 425 kg·ha-1 and the untreated control. Chloropicrin EC at 200 L·ha-1 and InLine at 236 to 393 L·ha-1 each applied singly controlled weeds as well as MB : CP at 425 kg·ha-1. Application of these fumigants through the drip irrigation systems provided equal or better weed control than equivalent rates applied by shank injection. InLine and CP EC efficacy on little mallow (Malva parviflora L.) or prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare L.) seed buried at the center of the bed did not differ from MB : CP. However, the percentage of weed seed survival at the edge of the bed was often higher in the drip-applied treatments than in the shank-applied treatments, possibly due to the close proximity of the shank-injected fumigant to the edge of the bed. Vapam HL was generally less effective than MB : CP on the native weed population or on weed seed. The use of Vapam HL in combination with InLine or CP EC did not provide additional weed control benefit. Chemical names used: 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D); sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam sodium); methyl bromide; trichloro-nitromethane (chloropicrin).

Bioeconomic Modeling to Simulate Weed Control Strategies for Continuous Corn (Zea mays)

Weed Science ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 972-979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert P. King ◽  
Donald W. Lybecker ◽  
Edward E. Schweizer ◽  
Robert L. Zimdahl
Keyword(s):  
Zea Mays ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Strategy ◽  
Performance Indicator ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Continuous Corn

Grass and broadleaf weed densities and seed numbers, weed control practices, and grain yields were included in a bioeconomic model that evaluates alternative weed management strategies for continuous corn (Zea maysL.). Weed seed numbers in soil and herbicide carry-over provided intertemporal links. Four weed management strategies – two fixed, one mixed, and one flexible – were evaluated with annualized net returns as the performance indicator. The flexible strategy (weed control based on observed conditions) had the largest annualized net return for high and low initial weed seed numbers. The fixed weed management strategy (weed control predetermined) of an annual application of only a preemergence herbicide ranked second in terms of annualized net returns for high weed seed numbers. The mixed weed management strategy of alternative year applications of preemergence herbicide and “as needed” applications of postemergence herbicide ranked second for low initial weed seed numbers. The fixed weed management strategy of alternate year application of preemergence herbicide only generated the lowest annualized net return, regardless of initial weed seed numbers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document