Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:53:58.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of weeds and crop yield to herbicide dose decision-support guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ullalena Boström  and
Håkan Fogelfors
Håkan Fogelfors
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Crop Production Science, SLU, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Today, the aim of weed management is to keep the weed community at an acceptable level rather than to keep the crop totally free of weeds. Satisfactory control of weeds may often be obtained when herbicides are used at lower doses than normally recommended. To facilitate the decision of what is an adequate dose in a specific field, the farmer needs support. In 1988 and 1989, a total of 10 field trials in spring cereals were initiated in Sweden with the objective of studying long-term effects of herbicide application according to recommendations from guidelines: the guidelines were developed at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and consisted of printed cards designed for in-field use. Treatments also included a full and a half dose and an untreated control. As an average over the experimental time, i.e., until 1997, the dose used in the guideline treatment varied at different sites between 20 and 70% of a full dose. In 1998, i.e., 1 yr after the last herbicide application, the plant densities of annual weeds in the guideline treatment, the half and the full doses were 51, 57, and 67% lower, respectively, than in the untreated control when averaged over sites. At two and four sites, the half and full doses resulted in significantly lower weed densities than where guidelines had been used. Compared with the control, the full and half doses increased the proportion of difficult-to-control weed species significantly at five and four sites by 21 and 24%, respectively. In the guideline treatment the proportion of difficult-to-control weeds was increased at one site. In 1998, weed counts were higher where guidelines had been used than in the full dose for common lambsquarters and common chickweed at three sites each and for wallflower mustard, catchweed bedstraw, field violet, Galeopsis spp., and Lamium spp. at one site each. At three sites, no significant treatment effects on crop yields were found, whereas yields at the remaining seven sites were higher where guidelines had been used than in other treatments in several years. It is concluded that application of dose rates according to recommendations from guidelines can be a fruitful way to reduce herbicide use.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. STEMEwallflower mustard, Erysimum cheiranthoides L. ERYCHcatchweed bedstraw, Galium aparine L. GALAPfield violet, Viola arvensis Murr. VIOARReduced rateslong termdecision-support systemsfloraoatsAvena sativa L.wheatTriticum aestivum L.barleyHordeum distichon L.efficacycrop yieldbromoxynildichlorprop-PioxynilMCPAtribenuron-methylIWM
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 186 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Andersson, L. 1994. Effects of MCPA and tribenuron-methyl on seed production and seed size of annual weeds. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 24:49–56.Google Scholar
Andersson, L. 1996. Characteristics of seeds and seedlings from weeds treated with sublethal herbicide doses. Weed Res. 36:55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Differential competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars against downy brome. Agron. J. 86:649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Economic decision rules for postemergence herbicide control of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:557–56.Google Scholar
Boström, U. 1994. Guidelines reduce the use of herbicides. Växtskyddsnot. 58:90–93. [In Swedish with English summary]Google Scholar
Boström, U. 1999. Type and time of autumn tillage with and without herbicides at reduced rates in southern Sweden. 2. Weed flora and diversity. Soil Till. Res. 50:283–293.Google Scholar
Boström, U. and Fogelfors, H. 2002. Long-term effects of herbicide-application strategies on weeds and yields in spring-sown cereals. Weed Sci. 50:196–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, P., Wilson, B. J., Wright, K. J., Seavers, G. P., and Caseley, J. C. 1999. Modeling the effect of crop and weed on herbicide efficacy in wheat. Weed Res. 39:21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, J. A., Boyd, J., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1996. Effect of growth stage and environment of foliar absorption, translocation, metabolism, and activity of nicosulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Sci. 44:447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Gunsolus, J. L., and Forcella, F. 1997. Field evaluation of a bioeconomic model for weed management in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 45:158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Challaiah, Burnside O.C., Wicks, G. A., and Johnson, V. A. 1986. Competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 34:689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34:29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilontheophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doll, H., Holm, U., and Søgaard, B. 1995. Effect of crop density on competition by wheat and barley with Agrostemma githago and other weeds. Weed Res. 35:391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogelfors, H. 1990. Different doses of herbicide for control of weeds in cereals—final report from the long-term series. Pages 139–151 In Swedish Crop Protection Conference on Weeds and Weed Control. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Multi-year validation of a decision aid for integrated weed management in row crops. Weed Sci. 44:650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, S. 1997. Competitive effects and competitiveness in annual plant stands. 2. Measurements of plant growth as influenced by density and relative time of emergence. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 27:75–94.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L., Buhler, D. D., and Owen, M. D. K. 1999. Weed population and crop yield response to recommendations from a weed control decision aid. Agron. J. 91:386–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leguizamón, E. S. and Roberts, H. A. 1982. Seed production by an arable weed community. Weed Res. 22:35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, M. C., Firbank, L. G., Watkinson, A. R., and Webb, D. J. 1998. Interactions between weeds of winter wheat under different fertilizer, cultivation and weed management treatments. Weed Res. 38:11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Seed bank characterization and emergence of a weed community in a moldboard plow system. Weed Sci. 45:54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murali, N. S., Secher, B. J. M., Rydahl, P., and Andreasen, F. M. 1999. Application of information technology in plant protection in Denmark: from vision to reality. Comput. Electron. Agric. 22:109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992a. Yield responses of spring cereals to reduced herbicide doses. Weed Res. 32:493–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salonen, J. 1992b. Efficacy of reduced herbicide doses in spring cereals of different competitive ability. Weed Res. 32:483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1995. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Rankins, A., Ruscoe, J. T., and Byrd, J. D. 1998. Field validation of weed control recommendations from HERB and SWC herbicide recommendation models. Weed Technol. 12:78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skuterud, R., Bjugstad, N., Tyldum, A., and Torresen, K. S. 1998. Effect of herbicides applied at different times of the day. Crop Prot. 17:41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigliani, L., Santospirito, G., Cardinale, N., and Resina, C. 1996. A relational database as decision support system in chemical weed control. Weed Technol. 10:781–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottman, D. R., Orson, J. H., Green, M. C. E., and Martin, T. D. 1988. The effect of weather conditions on the control of Galium aparine (cleavers) in winter wheat with fluroxypyr ester and mecoprop salt. Asp. Appl. Biol. 18:109–116.Google Scholar
Whiting, A. J. and Richards, M. C. 1991. Effect of winter wheat variety on growth and control of Fumaria officinalis . Ann. Appl. Biol. 118:124–125.Google Scholar
Xie, H. S., Hsiao, A. I., and Quick, W. A. 1997. Influence of drought on graminicide phytotoxicity in wild oat (Avena fatua) grown under different temperature and humidity conditions. J. Plant Growth Regul. 16:233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14:415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanin, G., Berti, A., and Riello, L. 1998. Incorporation of weed spatial variability into the weed control decision-making process. Weed Res. 38:107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z. H., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol. 14:106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar