Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T16:45:22.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting Cost-Minimizing Herbicide Programs for Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Rolf Olsen ,
Jayson K. Harper  and
William S. Curran
J. Rolf Olsen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ. and Rural Soc., Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Jayson K. Harper
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ. and Rural Soc., Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
William S. Curran
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA 16802
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A computer model which selects least cost herbicide programs given a minimum desired level of weed control could provide growers with economical weed management options. Using an integer programming approach, a herbicide selection model was developed for corn production under Pennsylvania conditions. Models for three rotations (corn-soybean, corn-corn, and corn-alfalfa) under three tillage systems (conventional tillage, reduced tillage, and no-till) that evaluated 21 soil-applied and 13 postemergence herbicide options for 24 weeds were developed. Each model minimizes the cost of a herbicide program subject to a desired level of weed control. By selecting the weed species to be controlled and the level of control desired, customized herbicide programs can be generated. The models can also be used to evaluate the cost of changing the level of control desired for an individual weed species or set of weeds.

Keywords

Alfalfa, Medicago sativa L.corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Integer programmingpest management economics
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 327 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. Cherney, J. H., Cox, W. J., Hahn, R. R., Klausner, S. D., Lucey, R. F., Masonis, D. J., Reid, W. S., Seaney, R. R., Wright, M. J., Shields, E. J., Pardee, W. D., Bergstrom, G. C., and Waldron, J. K. 1993. The 1993 Cornell recommendations for integrated field crop management. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
2. Franklin, R. E., Quisenberry, V. L., Gossett, B. J., and Murdock, E. C. 1994. Selection of herbicide alternatives based on probable leaching to groundwater. Weed Technol. 8:6–16.Google Scholar
3. Harvey, R. G., and Wagner, C. R. 1994. Using estimates of weed pressure to establish crop yield loss equations. Weed Technol. 8:114–118.Google Scholar
4. Hatley, O. E., Ayres, J. E., Beegle, D. B., Calvin, D. D., Curran, W. S., Daum, D., Hall, M. H., Harper, J. K., Hartwig, N. L., Landschoot, P., and Roth, G. W. 1993. The 1993 agronomy guide. College of Agric., Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA. 187 p.Google Scholar
5. Loux, M. M., Savage, D. C., and Harrison, S. K. 1993. Weed control guide for Ohio field crops. Dep. of Agron., Ohio Stale Coop. Ext. Serv., Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
6. Mortensen, D. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. Two approaches to weed control decision-aid software. Weed Technol. 5:445–452.Google Scholar
7. Ritter, R. L., Webb, F. J., Hagood, E. S., Swann, C. W., Wilson, H. P., and Monks, D. 1993. Pest Management Recommendations for Field Crops. Bulletin 237. Coop. Ext. Serv. of the Univ. of Maryland, Univ. of Delaware, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., and West Virginia Univ.Google Scholar
8. Swinton, S. M., and King, R. P. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agric. Systems 44:313–335.Google Scholar
9. Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: Decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar