scholarly journals Perspectives on Potential Soybean Yield Losses from Weeds in North America

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Ian C. Burke ◽  
Wesley J. Everman ◽  
Mark J. VanGessel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Commodity Prices ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
The Us

Weeds are one of the most significant, and controllable, threats to crop production in North America. Monetary losses because of reduced soybean yield and decreased quality because of weed interference, as well as costs of controlling weeds, have a significant economic impact on net returns to producers. Previous Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Weed Loss Committee reports, as chaired by Chandler (1984) and Bridges (1992), provided snapshots of the comparative crop yield losses because of weeds across geographic regions and crops within these regions after the implementation of weed control tactics. This manuscript is a second report from the current WSSA Weed Loss Committee on crop yield losses because of weeds, specifically in soybean. Yield loss estimates were determined from comparative observations of soybean yields between the weedy control and plots with greater than 95% weed control in studies conducted from 2007 to 2013. Researchers from each US state and Canadian province provided at least three and up to ten individual comparisons for each year, which were then averaged within a year, and then averaged over the seven years. These percent yield loss values were used to determine total soybean yield loss in t ha−1and bu acre−1based on average soybean yields for each state or province as well as current commodity prices for a given year as summarized by USDA-NASS (2014) and Statistics Canada (2015). Averaged across 2007 to 2013, weed interference in soybean caused a 52.1% yield loss. Based on 2012 census data in the US and Canada soybean was grown on 30,798,512 and 1,679,203 hectares with production of 80 million and 5 million tonnes, respectively. Using an average soybean price across 2007 to 2013 of US $389.81 t−1($10.61 bu−1), farm gate value would be reduced by US $16.2 billion in the US and $1.0 billion in Canada annually if no weed management tactics were employed.

Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 749-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Darren E. Robinson ◽  
Christy L. Sprague ◽  
Don W. Morishita ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North America ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
The United States ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Weed Interference

AbstractThe objective of this WSSA Weed Loss Committee report is to provide quantitative data on the potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference from the major sugar beet growing areas of the United States and Canada. Researchers and extension specialists who conducted research on weed control in sugar beet in the United States and Canada provided quantitative data on sugar beet yield loss due to weed interference in their regions. Specifically, data were requested from weed control studies in sugar beet from up to 10 individual studies per calendar year over a 15-yr period between 2002 and 2017. Data collected indicated that if weeds are left uncontrolled under optimal agronomic practices, growers in Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ontario, Oregon, and Wyoming would potentially lose an average of 79%, 61%, 66%, 68%, 63%, 75%, 83%, 78%, and 77% of the sugar beet yield. The corresponding monetary loss would be approximately US$234, US$122, US$369, US$43, US$40, US$211, US$12, US$14, and US$32 million, respectively. The average yield loss due to weed interference for the primary sugar beet growing areas of North America was estimated to be 70%. Thus, if weeds are not controlled, growers in the United States would lose approximately 22.4 million tonnes of sugar beet yield valued at approximately US$1.25 billion, and growers in Canada would lose approximately 0.5 million tonnes of sugar beet yield valued at approximately US$25 million. The high return on investment in weed management highlights the importance of continued weed science research for sustaining high crop yield and profitability of sugar beet production in North America.

Influence of Recovery Treatments on Dicamba-injured Soybean

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Brian R. Dintelmann ◽  
Shea T. Farrell ◽  
Kevin W. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Yield Loss ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Injury Reduction ◽  
Stages Of Growth ◽  
Average Precipitation ◽  
Injury Event ◽  
Recovery Treatment ◽  
Micronutrient Fertilizer ◽  
Similar Yield

Abstract Non-dicamba resistant soybean yield loss resulting from dicamba off-target injury has become an increasing concern for soybean growers in recent years. After off-target dicamba movement occurs onto sensitive soybean, little information is available on tactics that could be used to mitigate the cosmetic or yield losses that may occur. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted in 2017, 2018, and 2019 to determine if certain recovery treatments of fungicide, plant growth hormone, macro- and micronutrient fertilizer combinations, or weekly irrigation could reduce dicamba injury and/or result in similar yield to soybean that was not injured with dicamba. Simulated drift events of dicamba (5.6 g ae ha−1) were applied to non-dicamba resistant soybean once they reached the V3 or R2 stages of growth. Recovery treatments were applied approximately 14 d after the simulated drift event. Weekly irrigation was the only recovery treatment that provided appreciable levels of injury reduction or increases in soybean height or yield compared to the dicamba-injured plants. Weekly irrigation following the R2 dicamba injury event resulted in an 1% to 14% increase in soybean yield compared to the dicamba-injured control. All other recovery treatments resulted in soybean yields similar to the dicamba-injured control, and similar to or lower than the non-treated control. Results from this study indicate that if soybean have become injured with dicamba, weekly irrigation will help soybean recover some of the yield loss and reduce injury symptoms that resulted from off-target dicamba movement, especially in a year with below average precipitation. However, yield loss will likely not be restored to that of non-injured soybean.

scholarly journals APPLICATION HEIGHT IN HERBICIDES EFFICIENCY IN BEAN CROPS

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 607-614
Author(s):  
G. A. M. PEREIRA ◽  
L. H. BARCELLOS JR ◽  
D. V. SILVA ◽  
R. R. BRAGA ◽  
M. M. TEIXEIRA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Inverse Relationship ◽  
Target Surface ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Spray Solution ◽  
Bean Plants ◽  
Coefficients Of Variation ◽  
Sprayer Nozzle

ABSTRACTInadequate herbicide application can result in failures in weed control and/or poisoning of the crops, resulting in yield losses. In this research were assessed the effects of the sprayer nozzle boom height in the distribution of the spray solution for weed control, influencing intoxication of beans and crop yield. Experiments were conducted in laboratory and field conditions. In laboratory, the performance of flat spray tip TT 11002 was assessed at heights 0.20, 0.30, 0.40 and 0.50 meters with respect to the target surface. In the field the same heights were assessed in applications of herbicides fomesafen, fluazifop-P-butyl and fomesafen + fluazifop-P-butyl. There was an inverse relationship between the height of the spray boom and the coefficients of variation of the patterns. The mixture better efficiency in a tank of fluazifop-P-butyl + fomesafen was obtained with the height of 0.50 m from the target. This treatment resulted in better weed control, lower poisoning of the bean plants and better crop yield rates.

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.

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.

Round-leaved Mallow (Malva pusilla) Interference in Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Lentil (Lens culinaris) in Saskatchewan

Weed Science ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberte M. D. Makowski
Keyword(s):  
Crop Yield ◽  
Spring Wheat ◽  
Lens Culinaris ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Variable Model ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Crop Density ◽  
Density And Biomass ◽  
Tiller Density

The competitive ability of annual round-leaved mallow was determined in spring wheat and lentil at Indian Head and Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1985 and 1986 using paired quadrats. Significant biomass and seed yield loss occurred in three of four tests in lentil and two of three tests in spring wheat. Differences in numbers of wheat tillers produced between weedy and weed-free plots were found in three of four tests. A two-variable model comprised of early season crop density loss and round-leaved mallow biomass best accounted for the majority of variation in crop yield loss for both lentil and wheat, and tiller density loss in wheat. In 1985 at Indian Head, where no yield loss occurred for either wheat or lentil, round-leaved mallow had been seeded immediately before the crop. Greater yield losses occurred at Regina, in the presence of an older, well-established infestation. In the years and locations with the greatest crop yield losses, round-leaved mallow emerged before the crop causing poor crop emergence. At Regina in 1986, crop yield losses were more than 60% in wheat and 90 to 100% in lentil because of large differences in crop density between weed-free and weedy subplots. Round-leaved mallow exhibited great variability in growth, producing more biomass per plant, more capsules per plant, and more capsules per gram of biomass in the less competitive crop, lentil, than in wheat. Density and biomass of round-leaved mallow were not correlated; with a density of 200 plants m−2, round-leaved mallow biomass in wheat ranged from 100 to 500 g m−2; while in lentil, from 200 to as high as 1000 g m−2, approximately double the range found in wheat. The type of round-leaved mallow infestation (newly seeded or well-established) and environmental conditions (mainly early season precipitation) account for differences between sites and between years.

Estimating yield losses in wheat resulting from infestation by doublegee (Emex australis)

1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (70) ◽  
pp. 656 ◽  
Author(s):  
DJ Gilbey
Keyword(s):  
Crop Yield ◽  
Field Trial ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Wheat Yield ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Seedling Mortality ◽  
Emex Australis ◽  
Percentage Yield

The effect of doublegee (Emex australis) density on wheat yield was studied in a field trial. Percentage yield reduction (y) was related to doublegee plants m-2 at 1 week (x1) and 8 weeks (x2) after seeding thus: y = 10.3 + 0.24 x1 r = 0.78*** y = 5.6 + 0.44 x2 r = 0.86*** showing that estimates of doublegee density could be used for forecasting crop yield losses before it is too late to spray. No further yield loss occurred when x1 was greater than 120 plants metre-2. Doublegee seedling mortality that occurred during the seven weeks between plant counts was strongly related to the initial counts (x1) thus: r = 0.88***.

The Critical Period of Bengal Dayflower (Commelina Bengalensis) Control in Peanut

Weed Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore M. Webster ◽  
Wilson H. Faircloth ◽  
J. Timothy Flanders ◽  
Eric P. Prostko ◽  
Timothy L. Grey
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Plant Pathogens ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Peanut Crop ◽  
The Relationship

Bengal dayflower (also known as tropical spiderwort) is one of the most troublesome weeds in peanut in Georgia, United States. Field studies conducted in 2004 and 2005 evaluated the relationship between the duration of Bengal dayflower interference and peanut yield in an effort to optimize the timing of weed control. In 2004, the critical period of weed control (CPWC) necessary to avoid greater than 5% peanut yield loss was between 316 and 607 growing degree days (GDD), which corresponded to an interval between June 8 and July 2. In 2005, the CPWC ranged from 185 to 547 GDD, an interval between May 30 and July 3. Maximum yield loss in 2005 from season-long interference of Bengal dayflower was 51%. In 2004, production of peanut pods was eliminated by interference with Bengal dayflower for the initial 6 wk (495 GDD) of the growing season. Robust Bengal dayflower growth in 2004 shaded the peanut crop, likely intercepting fungicide applications and causing a reduction in peanut yield. Therefore, the competitive effects of Bengal dayflower are likely complicated with the activity of plant pathogens. In spite of higher Bengal dayflower population densities, greater Bengal dayflower growth, and greater peanut yield losses in 2004 than in 2005, the CPWC was a relatively similar 4-wk period that ended during the first week of July, for peanut that was planted in the first week of May.

scholarly journals Revisiting Planting Date and Cultivar Effects on Soybean Sudden Death Syndrome Development and Yield Loss

Plant Disease ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 100 (10) ◽  
pp. 2152-2157 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Marburger ◽  
Damon L. Smith ◽  
Shawn P. Conley
Keyword(s):  
Sudden Death ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Planting Date ◽  
Sudden Death Syndrome ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Planting Dates ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
The Impact

The impact of today’s optimal planting dates on sudden death syndrome (SDS) (caused by Fusarium virguliforme) development and soybean yield loss are not yet well understood. Field trials established in Hancock, Wisconsin during 2013 and 2014 investigated interactions between planting date and cultivar on SDS development and soybean yield. In 2013, disease index (DX) levels differed among cultivars, but results showed no difference between the 6 May and 24 May planting dates. Significantly lower DX levels were observed for the 17 June date. Greatest yields were found in the 6 May planting date, and yield losses were 720 (17%), 770 (20%), and 400 kg ha−1 (12%) for the 6 May, 24 May, 17 and June planting dates, respectively. In 2014, cultivars again differed for DX, but results showed highest DX levels in the 5 May planting date, with little disease observed in the 22 May and 11 June dates. Yield losses were 400 (12%) and 270 kg ha−1 (9%) for the 5 May and 22 May dates, respectively, but no difference was found in the 11 June date. Despite the most symptom development, these results suggest early May planting coupled with appropriate cultivar selection provides maximum yield potential and profitability in Wisconsin.

Cover-Crop Roller–Crimper Contributes to Weed Management in No-Till Soybean

Weed Science ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam S. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Bare Soil ◽  
Rate Variation ◽  
Hairy Vetch ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
No Till

Termination of cover crops prior to no-till planting of soybean is typically accomplished with burndown herbicides. Recent advances in cover-crop roller–crimper design offer the possibility of reliable physical termination of cover crops without tillage. A field study within a no-till soybean production system was conducted in Urbana, IL, from 2004 through 2007 to quantify the effects of cover crop (cereal rye, hairy vetch, or bare soil control), termination method (chemical burndown or roller–crimper), and postemergence glyphosate application rate (0, 1.1, or 2.2 kg ae ha−1) on soybean yield components, weed–crop interference, and soil environmental variables. Biomass of weeds surviving management within a soybean crop following either a vetch or rye cover crop was reduced by 26 and 56%, respectively, in the rolled system compared to the burndown system. Soybean yield loss due to weed interference was unaffected by cover-crop termination method in soybean following a rye cover crop, but was higher in the rolled than burndown treatment in both hairy vetch and bare soil treatments. In soybean following a rye cover crop, regardless of termination method, yield loss to weed interference was unaffected by glyphosate rate, whereas in soybean following a vetch cover crop or bare soil, yield loss decreased with glyphosate rate. Variation in soybean yield among cover crops and cover-crop termination treatments was due largely to differences in soybean establishment, rather than differences in the soil environment. Use of a roller–crimper to terminate a cover crop preceding no-till soybean has the potential to achieve similar yields to those obtained in a chemically terminated cover crop while reducing residual weed biomass.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document