Weed-Control Systems for Peanut Grown as a Biofuel Feedstock

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 584-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilson H. Faircloth ◽  
Jason A. Ferrell ◽  
Christopher L. Main
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Peanut Oil ◽  
Oil Yield ◽  
Oilseed Crop ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
The Cost ◽  
On Farm

Peanuts are not often used as a true oilseed crop, especially for the production of fuel. However, peanut could be a feedstock for biodiesel, especially in on-farm or small cooperative businesses, where producers can dictate the cost of making their own fuel. Field studies were conducted in 2005 and 2006 to assess low-cost weed-control systems for peanuts that would facilitate the economic viability of peanut biodiesel. Four preselected herbicide costs ranging from $25 to $62/ha and two application timings were compared with nontreated ($0/ha) and typical ($115/ha) herbicide programs for weed control and peanut oil yield. A peanut oil yield goal of 930 L/ha was exceeded with multiple low-cost herbicide systems in 3 of 4 site–yr. The main effect of application timing was only significant for a single site–year in which oil yield increased linearly with cost of the PRE and POST weed-control system. An herbicide cost of $50/ha, using PRE and POST applications, was consistently among the highest in oil yield, regardless of site–year, exceeding the typical (high value) programs in 3 of 4 site–yr. Use of reduced rates of imazapic (0.5× or 0.035 kg ai/ha) was detrimental in 2 of 4 site–yr. Weed control, and thus oil yields, were most dependent on species present at each location and not on input price. Data from this series of studies will allow researchers and entrepreneurs to more accurately assess the viability and sustainability of peanut biodiesel.

scholarly journals Determining the critical period for weed control in high-yielding cotton using common sunflower as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growing Degree Days ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Planting Season

AbstractField studies were conducted over six seasons to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding cotton, using common sunflower as a mimic weed. Common sunflower was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 plants m−2. Common sunflower was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 growing degree days (GDD) after planting. Season-long interference resulted in no harvestable cotton at densities of five or more common sunflower plants m−2. High levels of intraspecific and interspecific competition occurred at the highest weed densities, with increases in weed biomass and reductions in crop yield not proportional to the changes in weed density. Using a 5% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC extended from 43 to 615 GDD, and 20 to 1,512 GDD for one and 50 common sunflower plants m−2, respectively. These results highlight the high level of weed control required in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of control.

Application Timing for Weed Control in Corn (Zea mays) with Dicamba Tank Mixtures

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 602-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Spandl ◽  
Thomas L. Rabaey ◽  
James J. Kells ◽  
R. Gordon Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Zea Mays ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Common Lambsquarters ◽  
Giant Foxtail ◽  
Corn Grain ◽  
Corn Grain Yield

Optimal application timing for dicamba–acetamide tank mixes was examined in field studies conducted in Michigan and Wisconsin from 1993 to 1995. Dicamba was tank mixed with alachlor, metolachlor, or SAN 582H and applied at planting, 7 d after planting, and 14 d after planting. Additional dicamba plus alachlor tank mixes applied at all three timings were followed by nicosulfuron postemergence to determine the effects of noncontrolled grass weeds on corn yield. Delaying application of dicamba–acetamide tank mixes until 14 d after planting often resulted in lower and less consistent giant foxtail control compared with applications at planting or 7 d after planting. Corn grain yield was reduced at one site where giant foxtail control was lower when application was delayed until 14 d after planting. Common lambsquarters control was excellent with 7 or 14 d after planting applications. At one site, common lambsquarters control and corn yield was reduced by application at planting. Dicamba–alachlor tank mixes applied 7 d after planting provided similar weed control or corn yield, while at planting and 14 d after planting applications provided less consistent weed control or corn yield than a sequential alachlor plus dicamba treatment or an atrazine-based program.

Low-Cost Weed Control Systems for Close-Row Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Weed Science ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 700-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cardina ◽  
Aubrey C. Mixon ◽  
Glenn R. Wehtje
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Cost Treatment ◽  
Yield Quality ◽  
High Yields

Weed control, yield, quality, and net return in reduced-cost and standard weed control systems were studied in “Sunbelt runner’ peanuts (Arachis hypogaeaL.) planted in a twin-row pattern in 1982 to 85 at Tifton, GA, and 1982 to 84 at Headland, AL. Reduced herbicide rates and/or less expensive herbicides were used to decrease weed control costs. In years and locations where weed populations were low there were no differences in weed control, crop yield, or quality. The lowest cost treatment, which included three applications of paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion), caused reduced weed control at both locations in 1982 and reduced yield in 1982 and 1984. None of the systems consistently resulted in the highest weed control, crop yield, or quality. A system including reduced rates of preplant-incorporated herbicides followed by two applications of paraquat performed as well as the standard system but cost about 40% less. Due to low cost and generally high yields this system resulted in consistently high net returns. Results indicate that the potential exists for reducing herbicide inputs without sacrificing yield or quality.

Influence of Herbicides and Timing of Application on Broadleaf Weed Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 708-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. James Grichar
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Pitted Morningglory ◽  
Untreated Check ◽  
Ac 263,222

Field studies were conducted from 1992 through 1994 to evaluate application timing of seven postemergence (POST) broadleaf herbicides alone and in mixtures for control of eclipta and pitted morningglory. Imazethapyr and 2,4-DB did not control eclipta while AC 263,222 applied early postemergence (EPOST) at 0.07 kg/ha provided greater than 90% control in 2 of 3 yr. EPOST applications of bentazon, acifluorfen + bentazon, and pyridate controlled eclipta at least 92% all 3 yr. Lactofen applied EPOST at 0.28 kg/ha provided similar levels of eclipta control in 2 of 3 yr. Imazethapyr controlled pitted morningglory > 70% when applied EPOST. AC 263,222 controlled pitted morningglory a minimum of 83% when applied EPOST at 0.04 or 0.07 kg/ha. Pitted morningglory control was at least 85% with 2,4-DB applied alone or in a mixture with AC 263,222, acifluorfen, imazethapyr, lactofen, or pyridate. Effective weed control increased peanut yields up to 98% over the untreated check.

Herbicide-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus) Response and Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 551-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L. Grey ◽  
Paul L. Raymer ◽  
David C. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Italian Ryegrass ◽  
Wild Radish ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
And Control ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides ◽  
Significant Injury

Field studies were conducted to evaluate weed control in herbicide-resistant canola in Georgia. The resistant canola cultivars and respective herbicides were ‘Pioneer 45A76’ and imazamox, ‘Hyola 357RR’ and glyphosate, and ‘2573 Invigor’ and glufosinate. Weed seed of Italian ryegrass and wild radish were sown simultaneously in October with canola and control of these species was evaluated along with other naturally occurring weeds. Herbicide treatments for the respective herbicide-resistant canola cultivar were imazamox at 0.035 and 0.071 kg ai/ha, glyphosate at 0.84 and 1.64 kg ae/ha, and glufosinate at 0.5 and 1.0 kg ai/ha. Herbicides were applied at one– two-leaf (LF) and three–four-LF canola stages. There was no significant injury to any canola cultivar as a result of herbicide rate or timing of application. By midseason (February), imazamox effectively controlled wild radish, henbit, and shepherd's-purse at both rates and at both timings. When applied to three–four-LF canola, the higher rates of glyphosate and glufosinate were required to provide 75% or greater control of Italian ryegrass, wild garlic, and henbit. Glufosinate did not adequately control wild radish at either rate or application timing. Greenhouse experiments provided similar results.

scholarly journals Modeling of Glyphosate Application Timing in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Weed Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Sartorato ◽  
Antonio Berti ◽  
Giuseppe Zanin ◽  
Claudio M. Dunan
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Time Windows ◽  
Action Spectrum ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Removal Time ◽  
Postemergence Herbicides

The introduction of herbicide-resistant crops and postemergence herbicides with a wide action spectrum shifted the research focus from how to when crops should be treated. To maximize net return of herbicide applications, the evolution of weed–crop competition over time must be considered and its effects quantified. A model for predicting the yield trend in relation to weed removal time, considering emergence dynamics and density, was tested on data from glyphosate-resistant soybean grown in cropping systems in Italy and Argentina. Despite an ample variation of weed emergence dynamics and weed load in the four trials, the model satisfactorily predicted yield loss evolution. The estimated optimum time for weed control (OTWC) varied from about 18 d after soybean emergence in Argentina to 20 to 23 d in Italy, with time windows for spraying ranging from 14 to 28 d. Within these limits a single glyphosate application ensures good weed control at low cost and avoids side effects like the more probable unfavorable weed flora evolution with double applications and the presence of residues in grains. Despite the apparent simplicity of weed control based on nonselective herbicides, the study outlines that many variables have to be considered to optimize weed management, particularly for the time evolution of the infestation and, subsequently, a proper timing of herbicide application.

scholarly journals Application of soft sensors in the automated process control of different industries

2020 ◽  
Vol 166 ◽  
pp. 05003
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Savytskyi ◽  
Maksym Tymoshenko ◽  
Oleksandr Hramm ◽  
Serhii Romanov
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Modern Technology ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Industrial Processes ◽  
Soft Sensors ◽  
Automated Control ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Virtual Data

Sustainable development of industry is closely related with tries to automate industrial processes in all possible ways. Recent advances in automated control systems have led to decreasing the cost of hardware and energy consumption. This article describes examples of soft sensors using in various industries. The main advantages of soft sensors are low cost, flexibility and versatility. In addition, the soft sensors are environmentally friendly as they significantly reduce the amount of equipment and do not require utilization. Despite these benefits, there are some problems with using them. First problem consists in what information and how needs to be measured to use received data in calculation of another virtual data. Second problem is using proper software and the time of mathematical calculations. The goal of the soft sensors is generation of valid virtual data for the controller to increase the accuracy and quality of the automated control. The article is of interest from the point of view of possibilities to applicate modern technology in solving various tasks of automated control.

Determining the critical period for grass control in high-yielding cotton using Japanese millet as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 292-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Cropping Season ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Grass Weed

AbstractField studies were conducted over five seasons from 2004 to 2015 to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding, irrigated cotton using a competitive mimic grass weed, Japanese millet. Japanese millet was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 10, 20, 50, 100, and 200 plants m−2. Japanese millet was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 degree days of crop growth (GDD). Data were combined over years. Japanese millet competed strongly with cotton, with season-long interference resulting in an 84% reduction in cotton yield with 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. The data were fit to extended Gompertz and logistic curves including weed density as a covariate, allowing a dynamic CPWC to be estimated for densities of 10 to 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. Using a 1% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC commenced at 65 GDD, corresponding to 0 to 7 d after crop emergence (DAE), and ended at 803 GDD, 76 to 98 DAE with 10 Japanese millet plants m−2, and 975 GDD, 90 to 115 DAE with 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. These results highlight the high level of weed control required throughout the cropping season in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of weed control.

Weed Control in Glyphosate-Resistant Corn as Affected by Preemergence Herbicide and Timing of Postemergence Herbicide Application

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 564-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Parker ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
David L. Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Application Timing ◽  
Common Lambsquarters ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Prickly Sida ◽  
Smooth Pigweed ◽  
Or Applications

Field studies were conducted at three locations during both 2002 and 2003 to evaluate weed control and response of glyphosate-resistant (GR) corn to glyphosate or nicosulfuron plus atrazine applied POST at three application timings with and without alachlor plus atrazine applied PRE. The POST herbicides were applied timely (5- to 9-cm weeds) or applications were delayed 1 or 2 wk. All treatments, except the weedy check, were followed by glyphosate postemergence-directed (PDIR) 4 wk after the timely POST application. Common lambsquarters, common ragweed, Palmer amaranth, prickly sida, and smooth pigweed were controlled at least 94% regardless of PRE or POST treatments. Large crabgrass and fall panicum were controlled at least 96% by glyphosate regardless of PRE herbicide or POST application timing. In contrast, control by nicosulfuron plus atrazine POST in the absence of PRE herbicide decreased as application was delayed. Sicklepod was controlled at least 94% when POST herbicides were applied timely, but control by both POST herbicide treatments decreased with delayed application regardless of PRE herbicide. Tall morningglory was controlled 93% or greater by POST herbicides applied timely. Control by both POST herbicide treatments decreased as application was delayed, with glyphosate being affected more by timing than nicosulfuron plus atrazine. Corn grain yield was similar with glyphosate and nicosulfuron plus atrazine. Yield was unaffected by POST application timing when PRE herbicides were included. Without PRE herbicide, grain yield decreased as POST herbicide application was delayed.

Comparison of Imazethapyr and Paraquat-Based Weed Control Systems in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

1995 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 813-818 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy L. Grey ◽  
Glenn R. Wehtje ◽  
Robert H. Walker ◽  
Krishna P. Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Net Return ◽  
Yellow Nutsedge

Field studies were conducted from 1991 through 1993 to compare Weed control, peanut tolerance, yield, and net return from imazethapyr applied alone or in combination with paraquat. Sicklepod and Florida beggarweed were controlled with paraquat early POST followed by a POST application of either paraquat with 2,4-DB or paraquat with 2,4-DB and bentazon. Imazethapyr-based early POST treatments offered no improvement. An early POST application of paraquat with bentazon or imazethapyr was required for maximum control of bristly starbur. Imazethapyr applied alone early POST, with no further treatment, provided optimum yellow nutsedge control. Maximum yield and net return were associated with any paraquat-containing early POST-applied treatment followed by one of the tank mixed POST options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document