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.

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.

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.

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.

Influencing Agricultural Policy: Symposium Introduction

1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Gianessi ◽  
David C. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Agricultural Policy ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Crop Pest

A major debate is going on in the United States regarding the proper methods for crop pest management. One issue in this debate is whether weed control should be based largely on nonchemical or chemical means. This isn't the only issue that should be of interest to weed scientists, but it is important, and it illustrates the need to extend weed science research to influence public policy.

CHEMICAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN GRAIN SORGHUM AND SELECTIVITY OF ATRAZINE + S-METOLACHLOR TO DIFFERENT HYBRIDS

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 460
Author(s):  
HUDSON KAGUEYAMA TAKANO ◽  
AUGUSTO KALSING ◽  
DAURI APARECIDO FADIN ◽  
ROGERIO SILVA RUBIN ◽  
RODRIGO NEVES ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sorghum Bicolor ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Herbicide Tolerance ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Grain Sorghum ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cereal Crop ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Herbicide Alternatives

  ABSTRACT - Grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) is one cereal crop that faces huge problems with weed interference mostly because the lack of selective herbicides. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of herbicide alternatives for weed control in grain sorghum as well as the selectivity of atrazine + s-metolachlor to different hybrids. Three field trials were designed as a randomized complete block with four replications. All experiments were conducted in Jardinópolis-SP and Mogi Mirim-SP during the 2015/16 growing season. Two trials included acetochlor, flumioxazin, fluroxypyr, mesotrione and s-metolachlor, applied in pre or post-emergence, in association or not with atrazine. A third trial was carried out with rates of the premix containing atrazine + s-metolachlor applied to the following hybrids: 1G100, 1G220, 1G230, 1G244, 1G282, 50A10, 50A40, 50A50 and 50A70. The pre‑emergence herbicides that exhibited satisfactory efficacy of weed control and selectivity to sorghum crop were flumioxazin, atrazine + mesotrione and atrazine + s-metolachlor. For post‑emergence, atrazine, atrazine + acetochlor, atrazine + s-metolachlor and atrazine + fluroxypyr were the best treatments for both efficacy and selectivity. The application of atrazine + s-metolachlor at the evaluated rates was considered selective to the nine hybrids assessed.Keywords: acetochlor, fluroxypyr, mesotrione, herbicide tolerance, weed control. MANEJO QUÍMICO DE PLANTAS DANINHAS EM SORGO GRANÍFERO E SELETIVIDADE DE ATRAZINE + S-METOLACHLOR PARA DIFERENTES HÍBRIDOS RESUMO – O sorgo granífero (Sorghum bicolor) é um dos cereais de verão que mais enfrenta problemas com plantas daninhas em razão da interferência destas espécies e carência de herbicidas para controlá-las. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a eficácia e segurança de herbicidas alternativos no controle de plantas daninhas em sorgo granífero, assim como a seletividade de atrazine + s-metolachlor para diferentes híbridos. Três experimentos foram realizados em campo com delineamento de blocos ao acaso e quatro repetições, sendo conduzidos em Jardinópolis-SP e/ou Mogi Mirim-SP, ao longo da safra 2015/16. Em dois experimentos, acetochlor, flumioxazin, fluroxypyr, mesotrione e s-metolachlor foram avaliados em pré e/ou pós-emergência da cultura, em associação ou não (isolados) com atrazine. O terceiro experimento foi realizado com doses crescentes de atrazine + s-metolachlor e os híbridos de sorgo granífero 1G100, 1G220, 1G230, 1G244, 1G282, 50A10, 50A40, 50A50 e 50A70. Os tratamentos com controle satisfatório de plantas daninhas e seletividade à cultura, em pré-emergência, foram flumioxazin, atrazine + mesotrione e atrazine + s-metolachlor. Em pós-emergência, eles foram atrazine, atrazine + acetochlor, atrazine + s-metolachlor e atrazine + fluroxipyr. A aplicação de atrazine + s-metolachlor nas doses testadas foi seletiva para os nove híbridos avaliados.Palavras-chave: acetochlor, fluroxypyr, mesotrione, tolerância a herbicidas, controle de plantas daninhas. metolachlor at the evaluated rates was selective to the nine hybrids assessed.

scholarly journals Weed Management Programs in Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)

Agriculture ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taghi Bararpour ◽  
Ralph R. Hale ◽  
Gurpreet Kaur ◽  
Bhupinder Singh ◽  
Te-Ming P. Tseng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sorghum Bicolor ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Grain Sorghum ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Ipomoea Hederacea ◽  
Ipomoea Lacunosa ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Sida Spinosa

A field study was conducted in Arkansas over three years to evaluate various herbicide treatments, including sequential and tank-mix applications for weed control in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). The herbicide treatments used were quinclorac, atrazine + dimethenamid-p, S-metolachlor followed by (fb) atrazine + dicamba, dimethenamid-p fb atrazine, S-metolachlor + atrazine fb atrazine, S-metolachlor + mesotrione, and S-metolachlor fb prosulfuron. All herbicide treatments provided excellent (90% to 100%) control of Ipomoea lacunosa, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula, and Sida spinosa by 12 weeks after emergence. Quinclorac and S-metolachlor fb prosulfuron provided the lowest control of Ipomoea lacunosa, Urochloa platyphylla, Amaranthus palmeri, and Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula. Weed interference in the non-treated control reduced grain sorghum yield by 50% as compared to the weed-free control. S-metolachlor + mesotrione and S-metolachlor fb prosulfuron reduced sorghum yields by 1009 to 1121 kg ha−1 compared to other herbicide treatments. The five best herbicide treatments in terms of weed control and grain sorghum yield were quinclorac, atrazine + dimethenamid-p, S-metolachlor fb atrazine + dicamba, dimethenamid-p fb atrazine, and the standard treatment of S-metolachlor + atrazine fb atrazine.

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.

The Status of Weed Science at Universities and Experiment Stations in the Northeastern United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1150-1156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey F. Derr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Northeastern United States ◽  
Weed Ecology ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
The Status

Weed science is an important component of pest management. Weeds cause approximately 12% loss in United States crop production, reduce crop quality, poison livestock, and adversely affect human health, recreation, and transportation. Herbicides comprise approximately 65% of pesticide expenditures, whereas insecticides and fungicides each comprise less than 20%. The total effect of weeds, including crop losses and costs of control, in the United States was estimated in 1994 to be $20 billion annually. A survey was prepared and mailed to weed scientists at universities and experiment stations in the northeastern United States to determine the number of faculty positions and course offerings devoted to weed science. There are approximately five times as many entomologists and more than three times as many plant pathologists as weed scientists at universities in the northeast. There are more than six times as many graduate students currently in entomology and more than four times as many in plant pathology compared with weed science. Few undergraduate courses in weed science are taught, and most universities have no graduate classes in weed science. There are almost seven times as many undergraduate entomology courses and more than twice as many plant pathology courses as weed science classes in this region. There are more than 17 times as many graduate entomology courses and more than 15 times as many plant pathology courses compared with weed science graduate classes. There are no departments devoted solely to weed science in the northeast, whereas entomology and plant pathology departments are both common. Most universities have little to no faculty assigned to aquatic, forestry, noncrop weed control, weed ecology, or laboratory trials, and numbers assigned to agronomic and horticultural crop weed management are limited. Additional university resources are needed if weed science research, teaching, and extension efforts are to meet the priority needs in weed 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 Critical Period of Weed Control in Aerobic Rice

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Anwar ◽  
A. S. Juraimi ◽  
B. Samedani ◽  
A. Puteh ◽  
A. Man
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Aerobic Rice ◽  
View Point ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Economic View

Critical period of weed control is the foundation of integrated weed management and, hence, can be considered the first step to design weed control strategy. To determine critical period of weed control of aerobic rice, field trials were conducted during 2010/2011 at Universiti Putra Malaysia. A quantitative series of treatments comprising two components, (a) increasing duration of weed interference and (b) increasing length of weed-free period, were imposed. Critical period was determined through Logistic and Gompertz equations. Critical period varied between seasons; in main season, it started earlier and lasted longer, as compared to off-season. The onset of the critical period was found relatively stable between seasons, while the end was more variable. Critical period was determined as 7–49 days after seeding in off-season and 7–53 days in main season to achieve 95% of weed-free yield, and 23–40 days in off-season and 21–43 days in main season to achieve 90% of weed-free yield. Since 5% yield loss level is not practical from economic view point, a 10% yield loss may be considered excellent from economic view point. Therefore, aerobic rice should be kept weed-free during 21–43 days for better yield and higher economic return.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document