Research Needs for Integrated Weed Management Systems

Weed Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 30 (S1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. G. McWhorter ◽  
W. C. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Triticum Aestivum ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Copper Sulphate ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Research Needs ◽  
The Cost

Producers of food have always been troubled with weeds. Hand labor was the primary source of weed control for centuries, and selective weed control was not achieved until copper sulphate was used to control mustard (Brassicaspp.) in wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) in 1896 (4, 42). Adequate crop selectivity was usually difficult to obtain with herbicides during the first 40 yr of the 20th century and the cost of the early herbicides was high.

Pathogens as Mechanisms for Integrated Weed Management

Weed Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 30 (S1) ◽  
pp. 30-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Quimby ◽  
H. L. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Plant Pathogens ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Control Technology ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Row Crops ◽  
The Cost

A need exists to manage or manipulate plant pathogens for biocontrol of weeds in row crops. Many weed species remain refractory to conventional weed-control technology. Some of these weeds occur in the same families as important crops and are resistant or tolerant to many of the herbicides that are applied for weed control within those crops. Preemergence treatments are needed for some weed species for which only postemergence treatments are now available. The cost of controlling some weeds is so prohibitive that many farmers will not spend the necessary money; therefore, more economical control is needed.

Compatibility and Efficiency of In-Row Cultivation for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Vangessel ◽  
Edward E. Schweizer ◽  
Donald W. Lybecker ◽  
Phil Westra
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Bioeconomic Model ◽  
Gross Margin ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Management Tactics

Information on the effects of multiple weed management tactics in corn is needed to develop integrated weed management systems. The effectiveness and compatibility of an in-row cultivator as compared to a standard interrow cultivator used with reduced rates of a soil-applied herbicide, rotary hoeing, and/or a bioeconomic model for POST herbicide selection was examined. Weed control with a single rotary hoeing at corn emergence controlled annual weeds similarly to two rotary hoeings. One-third recommended use rate of alachlor controlled weeds similarly to a two-thirds rate. Reduced rates of alachlor controlled more weeds than rotary hoeing over 2 yr. The in-row cultivator required early-season weed control (rotary hoeing or reduced alachlor rate) for optimum efficacy. The in-row cultivator provided better weed control than the standard cultivator while the cost of operating the two cultivators was similar. Thus, the in-row cultivator was more efficient than the standard cultivator. Furthermore, less intensive early-season weed control was required with the in-row cultivator for maximum weed control as compared to the standard cultivator. Rotary hoeing plus the in-row cultivator provided similar weed control to other weed management tactics that required both soil-applied and POST herbicides. Gross margin was influenced more by corn yield than cost of weed management tactics.

Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management

Weed Science ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas D. Buhler ◽  
Robert G. Hartzler ◽  
Frank Forcella
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Plant Ecology ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Plant Responses ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Tillage Practices

The species composition and density of weed seed in the soil vary greatly and are closely linked to the cropping history of the land. Altering tillage practices changes weed seed depth in the soil, which plays a role in weed species shifts and affects efficacy of control practices. Crop rotation and weed control practices also affect the weed seedbank. Information on the influence of cropping practices on the weed seedbank should be a useful tool for integrated weed management. Decision aid models use information on the weed seedbank to estimate weed populations, crop yield loss, and recommend weed control tactics. Understanding the light requirements of weed seed may provide new approaches to weed management. Improving and applying our understanding of weed seedbank dynamics is essential to developing improved weed management systems. The principles of plant ecology must be integrated with the science of weed management to develop strategies that take advantage of basic plant responses in weed management systems for agronomic crops.

Integrated Weed Management Systems for Irrigated Corn (Zea mays) Production in Colorado—A Case Study

Weed Science ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 423-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Vangessel ◽  
Edward E. Schweizer ◽  
Donald W. Lybecker ◽  
Philip Westra
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Seed Bank ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Cooperative Research ◽  
Gross Margin ◽  
Management Tactics

Cooperative research was initiated by a multidisciplinary team of weed scientists and agricultural economists in 1975 that laid the foundation for integrated weed management research in Colorado. Colorado's integrated weed management research has four phases: weed seed bank decline, systems approach to weed management, bioeconomic modeling, and multiple weed management tactics. Each phase considered weed seed bank, weed control efficacy, weed control costs, crop yield, and gross margin. All four phases emphasize the need for a weed management system that minimizes seed production in situations where a high soil weed seed bank exists. However, once the weed seed bank is reduced, a weed management program with less than 100% weed control can be employed without increasing the seed bank. Intensive weed management systems are seldom justified when economics, weed control, and weed seed bank are considered. Integrated weed management approaches require integrating crop and weed biology with management tactics. Integrated weed management requires advanced managerial skills and often more time than traditional approaches.

scholarly journals Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds in Mexican Citrus Groves: Chemical Alternatives and Economic Viability

Plants ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Alcántara-de la Cruz ◽  
Pablo Alfredo Domínguez-Martínez ◽  
Hellen Martins da Silveira ◽  
Hugo Enrique Cruz-Hipólito ◽  
Candelario Palma-Bautista ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Economic Viability ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Bidens Pilosa ◽  
Citrus Groves ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
The Cost

Glyphosate is a cheap herbicide that has been used to control a wide range of weeds (4–6 times/year) in citrus groves of the Gulf of Mexico; however, its excessive use has selected for glyphosate-resistant weeds. We evaluated the efficacy and economic viability of 13 herbicide treatments (glyphosate combined with PRE- and/or POST-emergence herbicides and other alternative treatments), applied in tank-mixture or sequence, to control glyphosate-resistant weeds in two Persian lime groves (referred to as SM-I and SM-II) of the municipality of Acateno, Puebla, during two years (2014 and 2015). The SM-I and SM-II fields had 243 and 346 weeds/m2, respectively, composed mainly of Bidens pilosa and Leptochloa virgata. Echinochloa colona was also frequent in SM-II. The glyphosate alone treatments (1080, 1440, or 1800 g ae ha−1) presented control levels of the total weed population ranging from 64% to 85% at 15, 30, and 45 d after treatment (DAT) in both fields. Mixtures of glyphosate with grass herbicides such as fluazifop-p-butyl, sethoxydim, and clethodim efficiently controlled E. colona and L. virgata, but favored the regrowth of B. pilosa. The sequential applications of glyphosate + (bromacil + diuron) and glufosinate + oxyfluorfen controlled more than 85% the total weed community for more than 75 days. However, these treatments were between 360% and 390% more expensive (1.79 and 1.89 $/day ha−1 of satisfactory weed control, respectively), compared to the representative treatment (glyphosate 1080 g ae ha−1 = USD $29.0 ha−1). In practical and economic terms, glufosinate alone was the best treatment controlling glyphosate resistant weeds maintaining control levels >80% for at least 60 DAT ($1.35/day ha−1). The rest of the treatments, applied in tank-mix or in sequence with glyphosate, had similar or lower control levels (~70%) than glyphosate at 1080 g ae ha−1. The adoption of glufosiante alone, glufosinate + oxyfluorfen or glyphosate + (bromacil + diuron) must consider the cost of satisfactory weed control per day, the period of weed control, as well as other factors associated with production costs to obtain an integrated weed management in the short and long term.

Crop Manipulation in Integrated Weed Management Systems

Weed Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 30 (S1) ◽  
pp. 17-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Walker ◽  
Gale A. Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Component Part ◽  
Total System ◽  
Management Concept

Integrated weed management (IWM) became an accepted, and frequently used, term by weed scientists in the early 1970's. It has been argued by some that IWM is simply new terminology for a system that was previously called “weed control”. In any event, the acceptance of the “management concept” has assured the grower that chemicals for weed control are merely a component part of a total system for managing weeds in crops (9, 65).

scholarly journals Economics of row spacing and integrated weed management in soybean (Glycine max L.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-278
Author(s):  
Olumide Daramola ◽  
Olusegun Adeyemi ◽  
Joseph Adigun ◽  
Christopher Adejuyigbe
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Total Revenue ◽  
Cost Of Production ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
The Cost

The high cost of cultivation and weed management are major limiting factors to increasing soybean productivity and net returns. Field experiments were conducted in 2016 and 2017 at the Teaching and Research Farm of the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta to evaluate the economic performance of different row spacings and integrated weed management system in soybean. Three row spacings (50, 75 and 100 cm) as the main plots and six weed control methods and a weedy check as sub-plot treatments were accommodated in a split-plot arrangement of a randomized complete block design with three replications. There was a significant reduction in weed biomass with a reduction in row spacing from 100 cm to 75 cm and 50 cm. Furthermore, the cost of production, grain yield and gross profit increased with a reduction in row spacing from 100 to 75 and 50. When soybean was sown at 50-cm row spacing, the application of Probaben 400EC (metolachlor 20% w/v + prometryn 20% w/v) or Butachlor 60EC (butachlor) at 2.0 kg a.i/ha each followed by supplementary hoe-weeding at 6 weeks after sowing (WAS) resulted in the highest yield of 2301-2484 kg/ha and total revenue of 2129-1972 $/ha. Conversely, three hoe-weedings resulted in the highest yield of 2155-2081 kg/ha and total revenue of 1848-1783 $/ha for crops grown at 75- and 100-cm row spacings. Despite the higher yield and revenue obtained with three hoe-weedings for crops grown at 75- and 100-cm row spacings, the gross profit and benefit-cost ratios obtained were lower than those obtained with herbicide treatments applied alone or followed by supplementary hoe-weeding. In terms of profitability, soybean planted at 50-cm row spacing and treated with Probaben 400EC at 2.0 kg a.i/ha followed by supplementary hoe-weeding gave the highest gross profit of 1479 $/ha. Two or three hoe-weedings in soybean planted at narrow-row (50 cm) spacing did not guarantee the highest yield, but rather increased the cost of weed control. This study suggests that narrow-row spacing (50 cm) and pre-emergence herbicides will help to reduce the number of hoe-weedings and consequently the high cost of production required for optimum yield and increase profitability in soybean production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document