Potential Yield Loss in Dry Bean Crops Due to Weeds in the United States and Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Robert H. Gulden ◽  
Christy L. Sprague ◽  
Richard K. Zollinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Dry Bean ◽  
Bean Yield

AbstractEarlier reports have summarized crop yield losses throughout various North American regions if weeds were left uncontrolled. Offered here is a report from the current WSSA Weed Loss Committee on potential yield losses due to weeds based on data collected from various regions of the United States and Canada. Dry bean yield loss estimates were made by comparing dry bean yield in the weedy control with plots that had >95% weed control from research studies conducted in dry bean growing regions of the United States and Canada over a 10-year period (2007 to 2016). Results from these field studies showed that dry bean growers in Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Ontario, and Manitoba would potentially lose an average of 50%, 31%, 36%, 59%, 94%, 31%, 71%, 56%, and 71% of their dry bean yield, respectively. This equates to a monetary loss of US $36, 40, 6, 56, 421, 2, 18, 44, and 44 million, respectively, if the best agronomic practices are used without any weed management tactics. Based on 2016 census data, at an average yield loss of 71.4% for North America due to uncontrolled weeds, dry bean production in the United States and Canada would be reduced by 941,000,000 and 184,000,000 kg, valued at approximately US $622 and US $100 million, respectively. This study documents the dramatic yield and monetary losses in dry beans due to weed interference and the importance of continued funding for weed management research to minimize dry bean yield losses.

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 Volunteer Corn (Zea mays) Interference in Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo M. Sbatella ◽  
Andrew R. Kniss ◽  
Emmanuel C. Omondi ◽  
Robert G. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Yield Loss ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Dry Bean ◽  
Dry Edible Bean ◽  
Seed Field ◽  
Bean Yield ◽  
Volunteer Corn ◽  
Growing Conditions

Volunteer corn can affect dry bean by reducing yields; expanding the life cycle of insects, mites, and pathogens; interfering with harvest; and contaminating bean seed. Field studies were conducted at Lingle, WY, and Scottsbluff, NE, to determine the relationship between volunteer corn density and dry bean yield, establish the proper time of volunteer corn removal, and determine whether dry bean yield was affected by the method used to remove volunteer corn. Volunteer corn reduced dry bean yields, as recorded in other crops. Growing conditions for each location were different, as indicated by the accumulated growing degree days (GDD): Lingle 2008 (990), Lingle 2009 (780), and Scottsbluff 2009 (957). No difference in dry bean yields was observed between hand removal of volunteer corn and herbicide application. Dry bean yield loss increased with longer periods of volunteer corn competition and ranged from 1.2 to 1.8% yield loss for every 100 GDD that control was delayed. Control measures should be implemented 15 to 20 d after planting when volunteer corn densities are close to 1 plant m−2. Dry bean yield losses also increased as volunteer corn densities increased, with losses from 6.5 to 19.3% for 1 volunteer corn plant m−2. Based on 2015 prices, the cost of controlling volunteer corn would be the equivalent of 102 kg ha−1of dry bean, and potential losses above 4% would justify control and should not be delayed beyond 15 to 20 d after planting.

scholarly journals Soybean Yield Loss Estimates Due to Diseases in the United States and Ontario, Canada, from 2010 to 2014

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom W. Allen ◽  
Carl A. Bradley ◽  
Adam J. Sisson ◽  
Emmanuel Byamukama ◽  
Martin I. Chilvers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soybean Cyst Nematode ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Macrophomina Phaseolina ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Soybean Diseases

Annual decreases in soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) yield caused by diseases were estimated by surveying university-affiliated plant pathologists in 28 soybean-producing states in the United States and in Ontario, Canada, from 2010 through 2014. Estimated yield losses from each disease varied greatly by state or province and year. Over the duration of this survey, soybean cyst nematode (SCN) (Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) was estimated to have caused more than twice as much yield loss than any other disease. Seedling diseases (caused by various pathogens), charcoal rot (caused by Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid), and sudden death syndrome (SDS) (caused by Fusarium virguliforme O’Donnell & T. Aoki) caused the next greatest estimated yield losses, in descending order. The estimated mean economic loss due to all soybean diseases, averaged across U.S. states and Ontario from 2010 to 2014, was $60.66 USD per acre. Results from this survey will provide scientists, breeders, governments, and educators with soybean yield-loss estimates to help inform and prioritize research, policy, and educational efforts in soybean pathology and disease management.

Potential Corn Yield Losses from Weeds in North America

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Ian C. Burke ◽  
Wesley J. Everman ◽  
Mark J. VanGessel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Commodity Price ◽  
The United States ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Small Plot ◽  
Statistics Canada

Crop losses from weed interference have a significant effect on net returns for producers. Herein, potential corn yield loss because of weed interference across the primary corn-producing regions of the United States and Canada are documented. Yield-loss estimates were determined from comparative, quantitative observations of corn yields between nontreated and treatments providing greater than 95% weed control in studies conducted from 2007 to 2013. Researchers from each state and province provided data from replicated, small-plot studies from at least 3 and up to 10 individual comparisons per year, which were then averaged within a year, and then averaged over the seven years. The resulting percent yield-loss values were used to determine potential total corn yield loss in t ha−1 and bu acre−1 based on average corn yield for each state or province, as well as corn commodity price for each year as summarized by USDA-NASS (2014) and Statistics Canada (2015). Averaged across the seven years, weed interference in corn in the United States and Canada caused an average of 50% yield loss, which equates to a loss of 148 million tonnes of corn valued at over U.S.$26.7 billion annually.

scholarly journals An analysis of ozone damage to historical maize and soybean yields in the United States

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (46) ◽  
pp. 14390-14395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M. McGrath ◽  
Amy M. Betzelberger ◽  
Shaowen Wang ◽  
Eric Shook ◽  
Xin-Guang Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Food Production ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ground Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Ground Level Ozone ◽  
Food And Feed ◽  
Actual Yield

Numerous controlled experiments find that elevated ground-level ozone concentrations ([O3]) damage crops and reduce yield. There have been no estimates of the actual yield losses in the field in the United States from [O3], even though such estimates would be valuable for projections of future food production and for cost–benefit analyses of reducing ground-level [O3]. Regression analysis of historical yield, climate, and [O3] data for the United States were used to determine the loss of production due to O3 for maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) from 1980 to 2011, showing that over that period production of rain-fed fields of soybean and maize were reduced by roughly 5% and 10%, respectively, costing approximately $9 billion annually. Maize, thought to be inherently resistant to O3, was at least as sensitive as soybean to O3 damage. Overcoming this yield loss with improved emission controls or more tolerant germplasm could substantially increase world food and feed supply at a time when a global yield jump is urgently needed.

scholarly journals Understanding the Competitive Effects of Blessed Milkthistle Densities on Wheat

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. REHMAN ◽  
R. QAMAR ◽  
M.E. SAFDAR ◽  
H.M.R. JAVEED ◽  
M. SHEHZAD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Wheat Crop ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
Gradual Reduction ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
1000 Grain Weight

ABSTRACT: Weed-induced yield loss in wheat crop is a great threat to food security in Pakistan. A comprehensive understanding of weed-crop competition is very important to develop sustainable and cost-effective weed management. For this purpose, two-year field studies were conducted to determine the effect of different blessed milkthistle densities on the phenology and yield of wheat crop in a rice-wheat cropping scheme in Sargodha, Pakistan during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The experiment comprised seven treatments: control (weed free), weedy check (weedy without any control) and blessed milkthistle densities of 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 plants m-2. In response to increasing weed density, a gradual reduction in yield and yield-related traits of wheat was noted. Compared to the weed-free control, a significant reduction in number of productive tillers m-2 (20% and 18%), plant height (15% and 18%), spike length (19% and 26%), number of grains spike-1 (23% and 26%), 1000 grain weight (28% and 28%), grain (29% and 30%) and biological (20% and 24%) yields of wheat occurred at and beyond blessed milkthistle density of 5 plants m-2 during 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 respectively. It can be concluded that blessed milkthistle weed must be controlled if its population density reaches 5 plants m-2 in order to avoid significant grain yield losses in wheat.

Snap Bean Tolerance to Herbicides in Ontario

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 962-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen E. McNaughton ◽  
Peter H. Sikkema ◽  
Darren E. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Plant Height ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Treatment Plant ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Management Tools ◽  
Snap Bean ◽  
Bean Yield

Snap bean was evaluated for sensitivity to a number of herbicides in field studies conducted during a 2-yr period in Exeter, ON. Preemergence (PRE) applications of metolachlor (1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha), imazethapyr (75 and 150 g ai/ha), and clomazone plus metobromuron (840 + 1,000 g ai/ha and 1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) were evaluated for visual injury at 7, 14, and 28 d after emergence. Postemergence (POST) applications of imazamox plus fomesafen (25 + 200 g ai/ha and 50 + 400 g/ha), quizalofop-P (72 and 144 g ai/ha), and clethodim (90 and 180 g ai/ha) also were evaluated for visual injury 7, 14, and 28 d after treatment. Plant height and crop yield were assessed for all treatments. Visual injury, stunting, and yield loss were not observed in the metolachlor treatments. Imazethapyr (150 g/ha) caused stunting and reduced snap bean yield in both study years. Clomazone plus metobromuron (1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) injured and stunted snap bean in both years of the study and reduced yield in 2000. Imazamox plus fomesafen (50 + 400 g/ha) injured snap bean in both years but only reduced yield in 2000. Quizalofop-P injured snap bean but did not reduce plant height or yield. Clethodim did not injure, stunt, or reduce yield of snap bean. Metolachlor (PRE), imazamox plus fomesafen (POST), quizalofop-P (POST), and clethodim (POST) have excellent potential as weed management tools in snap bean in Ontario.

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.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control: Revisiting Data Analysis

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (SP1) ◽  
pp. 188-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Avishek Datta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
The United States ◽  
Growth Cycle ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Yield Losses

There is an ever-larger need for designing an integrated weed management (IWM) program largely because of the increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds, not only in the United States but also worldwide. An IWM program involves a combination of various methods (cultural, mechanical, biological, genetic, and chemical) for effective and economical weed control (Swanton and Weise 1991). One of the first steps in designing an IWM program is to identify thecritical period for weed control(CPWC), defined as a period in the crop growth cycle during which weeds must be controlled to prevent crop yield losses (Zimdahl 1988).

scholarly journals Quantifying Alfalfa Yield Losses Caused by Foliar Diseases in Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Vermont

Plant Disease ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. W. Nutter ◽  
J. Guan ◽  
A. R. Gotlieb ◽  
L. H. Rhodes ◽  
C. R. Grau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Remote Sensing ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Fungicide Treatment ◽  
Foliar Diseases ◽  
Significant Yield

Although foliar diseases of alfalfa occur throughout the United States wherever alfalfa is grown, little work has been done to quantify yield losses caused by foliar pathogens since the late 1980s. To quantify the yield losses caused by foliar diseases of alfalfa, field experiments were performed in Iowa, Ohio, Vermont, and Wisconsin from 1995 to 1998. Different fungicides and fungicide application frequencies were used to obtain different levels of foliar disease in alfalfa. Visual disease and remote sensing assessments were performed weekly to determine the relationships between disease assessments and alfalfa yield. Visual disease assessments of percentage of defoliation, disease incidence, and disease severity were performed weekly, approximately five to six times during each alfalfa growth cycle. Remote sensing assessments also were obtained weekly by measuring the percentage of sunlight reflected from alfalfa canopies using handheld, multispectral radiometers. Yield loss estimates were calculated as the yield difference between the fungicide treatment with the highest yield and the nonfungicide control, divided by the yield obtained from the highest yielding fungicide treatment × 100. Over the 4-year period, significant alfalfa yield losses (P ≤ 0.05) occurred on 22 of the 48 harvest dates for the four states. The average significant yield loss for the 22 harvests was 19.3%. Both visual and percentage of reflectance assessments were used as independent variables in linear regression models to quantify the relationships between assessments and alfalfa yield. From 1995 to 1998, visual disease assessments were performed for a total of 209 dates and remote sensing assessments were performed on 198 dates from the four states. Yield models were developed for each of these assessment dates. There were 26/209, 26/209, and 17/209 significant yield models based on percentage of defoliation, disease incidence, and disease severity, respectively. Most of the significant models were for disease assessments performed on or within 1 or 2 weeks of the date of alfalfa harvest. When the significant models were averaged, percentage of defoliation, disease incidence, and disease severity explained 51, 55, and 52% of the variation in alfalfa yield, respectively. There were a total of 68/198 significant alfalfa yield models based on remote sensing assessments, and the significant models (averaged) explained 62% of the variation in alfalfa yield. Alfalfa foliar diseases continue to have a significant negative impact on alfalfa yields in the United States and remote sensing appears to offer a better means to quantify the impact of foliar diseases on alfalfa yield compared with visual assessment methods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document