scholarly journals Integrated Weed Management in Herbaceous Field Crops

Agronomy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelio Scavo ◽  
Giovanni Mauromicale
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Biotic Factor ◽  
Agronomic Practices ◽  
Field Crops ◽  
Weed Mapping ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
The Government

Current awareness about the environmental impact of intensive agriculture, mainly pesticides and herbicides, has driven the research community and the government institutions to program and develop new eco-friendly agronomic practices for pest control. In this scenario, integrated pest management and integrated weed management (IWM) have become mandatory. Weeds are commonly recognized as the most important biotic factor affecting crop production, especially in organic farming and low-input agriculture. In herbaceous field crops, comprising a wide diversity of plant species playing a significant economic importance, a compendium of the specific IWM systems is missing, that, on the contrary, have been developed for single species. The main goal of this review is to fill such gap by discussing the general principles and basic aspects of IWM to develop the most appropriate strategy for herbaceous field crops. In particular, a 4-step approach is proposed: (i) prevention, based on the management of the soil seedbank and the improvement of the crop competitiveness against weeds, (ii) weed mapping, aiming at knowing the biological and ecological characteristics of weeds present in the field, (iii) the decision-making process on the basis of the critical period of weed control and weed thresholds and iv) direct control (mechanical, physical, biological and chemical). Moreover, the last paragraph discusses and suggests possible integrations of allelopathic mechanisms in IWM systems.

Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: A review

2005 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 457-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orla M. Nazarko ◽  
Rene C. Van Acker ◽  
Martin H. Entz
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Pesticide Use ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Field Crops ◽  
Low Input Agriculture ◽  
Herbicide Use

There are many economic and health reasons for reducing pesticide use in Canada. Herbicide use on field crops is by far the most common pesticide use in Canada. This paper is a review of four topics related to herbicide use reduction on field crops in Canada: (1) broad strategies and (2) specific tactics for herbicide use reduction; (3) factors affecting adoption; and 4) research approaches for improving the implementation of herbicide use reduction. Numerous tactics exist to use herbicides more efficiently and herbicides can sometimes be replaced by non-chemical weed control methods. Many of these tactics and methods have been investigated and demonstrated for use on field crops in Canada. However, herbicide use reduction is fundamentally dependent upon preventative strategies designed to create robust cropping systems that maintain low weed densities. Diverse crop rotation forms the basis of preventative strategies as it inherently varies cropping system conditions to avoid weed adaptation. There is evidence that residual weed densities resulting from herbicide use reduction are manageable within competitive cropping systems. A great deal of research has been done on herbicide use reduction on field crops in Canada, and most projects report definite possibilities for herbicide use reduction in field crop production in Canada. Synthesizing and extending this information and customizing it for use on individual farms remain challenges. Collaboration between researchers and farmers can help to build successful strategies for herbicide use reduction which reflect the context of modern farming, the will of farmers and the culture of technology adoption among farmers. Key words: Pesticide use reduction, low-input agriculture, integrated pest management, integrated weed management

Evaluation of Herbicide Programs for Use in a 2,4-D–Resistant Soybean Technology for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri)

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ryan Miller ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Amaranthus Palmeri ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
High Level ◽  
Herbicide Programs

Two separate field experiments were conducted over a 2-yr period in Fayetteville, AR, during 2012 and 2013 to (1) evaluate POST herbicide programs utilizing a premixture of dimethylamine (DMA) salt of glyphosate + choline salt of 2,4-D in a soybean line resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate and (2) determine efficacy of herbicide programs that begin with PRE residual herbicides followed by POST applications of 2,4-D choline + glyphosate DMA on glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. In the first experiment, POST applications alone that incorporated the use of residual herbicides with the glyphosate + 2,4-D premixture provided 93 to 99% control of Palmer amaranth at the end of the season. In the second experiment, the use of flumioxazin, flumioxazin + chlorimuron methyl, S-metolachlor + fomesafen, or sulfentrazone + chloransulam applied PRE provided 94 to 98% early-season Palmer amaranth control. Early-season control helped maintain a high level of Palmer amaranth control throughout the growing season, in turn resulting in fewer reproductive Palmer amaranth plants present at soybean harvest compared to most other treatments. Although no differences in soybean yield were observed among treated plots, it was evident that herbicide programs should begin with PRE residual herbicides followed by POST applications of glyphosate + 2,4-D mixed with residual herbicides to minimize late-season escapes and reduce the likelihood of contributions to the soil seedbank. Dependent upon management decisions, the best stewardship of this technology will likely rely on the use multiple effective mechanisms of action incorporated into a fully integrated weed management system.

An Environmental and Economic Perspective on Integrated Weed Management in Iran

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-361
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ghorbani ◽  
Surendra Kulshreshtha
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Wheat Yield ◽  
Multinomial Logit Model ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
Wheat Cultivation ◽  
Irrigated Wheat ◽  
Herbicide Use

Inputs, including herbicides, used in crop production may create negative environmental impacts. One solution to minimize these adverse effects is the adoption of integrated weed management (IWM) with the intention of reducing herbicide use. This study, conducted in 2010, estimates the willingness of farmers to pay for the adoption of more effective weed management methods. Results suggest that the willingness to pay (WTP) for IWM is greater than the WTP for other weed management methods, including chemical weed management and chemical and mechanical weed management. This study also identified a number of factors that influence the adoption of IWM on wheat farms in Iran using a multinomial logit model. Total annual income, area under irrigated wheat, wheat yield loss due to weeds, perennial nature of the weeds, and having awareness of weed resistance to herbicides had a positive effect on the adoption of IWM practices. However, having rain-fed (dryland) wheat cultivation and a larger number of plots on the farm had a negative influence on the choice of IWM.

scholarly journals Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations

Weed Science ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (SP1) ◽  
pp. 31-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason K. Norsworthy ◽  
Sarah M. Ward ◽  
David R. Shaw ◽  
Rick S. Llewellyn ◽  
Robert L. Nichols ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Best Management Practices ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Economic Thresholds ◽  
Soil Seedbank

Herbicides are the foundation of weed control in commercial crop-production systems. However, herbicide-resistant (HR) weed populations are evolving rapidly as a natural response to selection pressure imposed by modern agricultural management activities. Mitigating the evolution of herbicide resistance depends on reducing selection through diversification of weed control techniques, minimizing the spread of resistance genes and genotypes via pollen or propagule dispersal, and eliminating additions of weed seed to the soil seedbank. Effective deployment of such a multifaceted approach will require shifting from the current concept of basing weed management on single-year economic thresholds.

scholarly journals Bioherbicides: An Eco-Friendly Tool for Sustainable Weed Management

Plants ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1212
Author(s):  
Mahmudul Hasan ◽  
Muhammad Saiful Ahmad-Hamdani ◽  
Adam Mustafa Rosli ◽  
Hafizuddin Hamdan
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Membrane Integrity ◽  
Bioactive Compound ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Pigment Synthesis ◽  
Cell Membrane Integrity

Weed management is an arduous undertaking in crop production. Integrated weed management, inclusive of the application of bioherbicides, is an emerging weed control strategy toward sustainable agriculture. In general, bioherbicides are derived either from plants containing phytotoxic allelochemicals or certain disease-carrying microbes that can suppress weed populations. While bioherbicides have exhibited great promise in deterring weed seed germination and growth, only a few in vitro studies have been conducted on the physiological responses they evoke in weeds. This review discusses bioherbicide products that are currently available on the market, bioherbicide impact on weed physiology, and potential factors influencing bioherbicide efficacy. A new promising bioherbicide product is introduced at the end of this paper. When absorbed, phytotoxic plant extracts or metabolites disrupt cell membrane integrity and important biochemical processes in weeds. The phytotoxic impact on weed growth is reflected in low levels of root cell division, nutrient absorption, and growth hormone and pigment synthesis, as well as in the development of reactive oxygen species (ROS), stress-related hormones, and abnormal antioxidant activity. The inconsistency of bioherbicide efficacy is a primary factor restricting their widespread use, which is influenced by factors such as bioactive compound content, weed control spectrum, formulation, and application method.

Response of Triallate-Resistant Wild Oat (Avena fatua) to Alternative Herbicides

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Blackshaw ◽  
John T. O'Donovan ◽  
M. Paul Sharma ◽  
K. Neil Harker ◽  
Denise Maurice
Keyword(s):  
Dose Response ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Avena Fatua ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Wild Oat ◽  
Wild Oats ◽  
Field Crops

Wild oat populations resistant to triallate have been identified in Alberta. Dose response experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to determine if triallate-resistant wild oat was controlled by other selective wild oat herbicides. Triallate-resistant wild oat populations were effectively controlled by atrazine, ethalfluralin, fenoxaprop-P, flamprop, imazamethabenz, and tralkoxydim. EPTC and cycloate, which are chemically related to triallate, differed in their efficacy on triallate-resistant wild oats. EPTC at the 0.25x field use rate was more efficacious on triallate-resistant than triallate-susceptible wild oat. In contrast, cycloate at the 0.25 to 0.5x field use rate was less efficacious on triallate-resistant than susceptible wild oats. At higher rates, both EPTC and cycloate killed triallate-resistant wild oat populations. Growers have several herbicide choices to selectively control triallate-resistant wild oat in prairie field crops but should plan to rotate herbicides among different chemical families and adopt integrated weed management practices to reduce the risk of these wild oat populations developing resistance to other wild oat herbicides.

Weed management practices in Argentina crops

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (03) ◽  
pp. 459-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Alejandro Scursoni ◽  
Alejandra Carolina Duarte Vera ◽  
Fernando Hugo Oreja ◽  
Betina Claudia Kruk ◽  
Elba Beatriz de la Fuente
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Chemical Application ◽  
Modes Of Action ◽  
The People ◽  
Herbicide Timing ◽  
Narrow Row

AbstractData from surveys are used to help quantitatively diagnose the relative importance of chemical and nonchemical management practices, identify weed problems, and provide potential solutions. However, to our knowledge, such surveys have not been conducted in Argentina. In 2016, advisors and crop producers from cropping areas across Argentina were surveyed through email with the objectives to identify the main weed species problems and assess the use of chemical and nonchemical weed management practices in different crop production areas in Argentina. Fleabane, pigweed, johnsongrass, fingergrass, goosegrass, barnyardgrass, and ryegrass were considered the most important weeds. More than 53% of the producers used only chemical options; 86% used chemical fallow (i.e., keeping weed free with chemical application); 62% used full herbicide rates; 46% used proper herbicide timing; 41% used multiple modes of action; and 32% used rotation of herbicide modes of action. The main nonchemical practices used were crop rotation (45%); avoiding seed production during (31%) and after (25%) the crop cycle; narrow row spacing (19%); and cultivars with greater competitive ability (18%). Less than 15% of the people surveyed used increased crop densities or altered date of sowing. There is a high dependence on chemical control in the main crops grown in Argentina. Extension efforts are needed to emphasize the importance of integrated weed management.

Integrated Weed Management–A Component of Integrated Pest Management: A Critical Review

1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald C. Thill ◽  
Joan M. Lish ◽  
Robert H. Callihan ◽  
Edward J. Bechinski
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Pest Management ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Systems Science ◽  
Economic Damage ◽  
Weed Science ◽  
Interdisciplinary Practice

Integrated weed management (IWM) is a component of integrated pest management (IPM), which is an interdisciplinary practice involving disciplines such as entomology, nematology, plant pathology, weed science, horticulture, agronomy, ecology, economics, and systems science. Most descriptions of IPM mention three elements: a) multiple tactics (for example, competitive varieties, cultural practices, herbicide usage) used in a compatible manner; b) pest populations maintained below levels that cause economic damage, and c) conservation of environmental quality. Integrated weed management was discussed in 1981 during a Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Symposium entitled Integrated Weed Management Systems Technology for Crop Production and Protection. Topics presented included modeling weed biology, crop manipulation, biological control, herbicide technology, research needs, teaching approaches, and extension implementation. Our paper was presented as part of a symposium on IWM at the 1990 WSSA meeting. This paper describes some of the research that weed scientists have conducted during the past 40 yr. Topics examined include an introductory review of IPM, trends in several categories of weed research, goals and suggestions stated during the 1981 WSSA Symposium on IWM, IWM accomplishments since about 1981, and the future of IWM as a component of IPM.

Integrated Weed Management: The Rationale and Approach

1991 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarence J. Swanton ◽  
Stephan F. Weise
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Conservation Tillage ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Seed Bank Dynamics ◽  
The Government

A growing awareness of environmental issues in Canada has had a major influence on government policies. An initiative was launched by the government of Ontario to promote research toward the development of an integrated weed management (IWM) system. Research in IWM must take all aspects of the cropping system into consideration and evolve in a progressive manner. This approach must encompass the role of conservation tillage, knowledge of the critical period of weed interference, alternative methods of weed control, enhancement of crop competitiveness, modeling of crop-weed interference, influence of crop rotation and seed bank dynamics, and education and extension of the findings. The complexity involved in addressing these issues requires a multi-disciplinary approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document