Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:26:41.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Site-Specific Weed Management in Cotton Using WebHADSS™

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. J. Ford ,
P. A. Dotray ,
J. W. Keeling ,
J. B. Wilkerson ,
J. W. Wilcut  and
L. V. Gilbert
A. J. Ford
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2122
P. A. Dotray*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2122
J. W. Keeling
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLIFE Research, Lubbock, TX 79403
J. B. Wilkerson
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
J. W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
L. V. Gilbert
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLIFE Research, Lubbock, TX 79403
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were established in 2005 and continued in 2006 to evaluate a conventional broadcast herbicide sprayer compared to a variable spray (sensor-activated) weed-sensing sprayer (WSS). The computer-based Herbicide Application Decision Support System (WebHADSS™) was used to determine a portion of the herbicides applied (based on herbicide efficacy and economics). Weed control, herbicide usage, crop yield, and net returns were compared across treatments. The broadcast applications were usually the most effective at controlling weeds. A PPI herbicide did not always improve weed control compared to treatments in which no PPI herbicide was applied. Variable treatments used less herbicide than the broadcast system in both years. Cotton lint yields in broadcast applications were similar to the weed-free check in both years of the study. Variable treatments often provided equivalent net returns (gross yield revenue less weed control cost) to the broadcast treatments. Although herbicide savings were observed in the variable treatments when compared to a broadcast system, a reduction in weed control was observed, indicating the need for future improvements of this system. A site-specific weed management program used in conjunction with WebHADSS™ may have potential in cotton production systems in the Texas Southern High Plains where weed densities are low.

Se establecieron ensayos de campo en 2005 que continuaron en 2006 para evaluar el uso de un aspersor convencional de herbicida comparado con un aspersor de dosis variable activado por un sensor que detecta la maleza (WSS). Un sistema computarizado Apoyo para la Decisión de Aplicaciones de Herbicida (Herbicide Application Decision Support System - WebHADSS™) fue utilizado para determinar una porción de los herbicidas aplicados, basado en la eficacia y el precio de los mismos. El control de maleza, el uso del herbicida, el rendimiento del cultivo y las utilidades netas, se compararon a través de tratamientos. Las aplicaciones asperjadas fueron generalmente las más efectivas para controlar la maleza. Un herbicida incorporado en pre-siembra (PPI) no siempre mejoró el control de maleza comparado con los tratamientos donde no se aplicó este tipo de herbicida. Los tratamientos variables con un manejo de la maleza sitio-específico en el algodón utilizando WebHADSS™, utilizaron menos herbicida que el sistema de aspersión aérea en ambos años. Los rendimientos de fibra de algodón en aplicaciones con aspersión aérea, fueron similares a los rendimientos del testigo libre de maleza en ambos años del estudio. Los tratamientos variables con frecuencia proporcionaron utilidades netas equivalentes a los de aspersión aérea. Si bien se observaron ahorros en el consumo de herbicidas utilizados en los tratamientos variables comparados con el sistema de aspersión aérea, también se observó una reducción en el control de la maleza, indicando con esto, la necesidad de mejorar este sistema en el futuro. Un programa de manejo de malezas sitio-específico usado conjuntamente con WebHADSS™ podría tener potencial para los sistemas de producción de algodón en el altiplano del sur de Texas donde las densidades de maleza son bajas.

Keywords

CottonGossypium hirsutum L.Decision support systemFibermax 960 BR cottonherbicide usenet returnweed controlweed-sensing sprayervariable sprayer application
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 107 - 112
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Ford Crop Consulting, Dumas, TX 79029.

References

Literature Cited

Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of weed populations. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 332 p.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Ferguson, R. B. 2000. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. II. Hypothesis generation. Weed Sci. 48:576–587.Google Scholar
Dotray, P. A. and Keeling, J. W. 1996. Silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) control with glyphosate at reduced rates. Texas J. Agric. Nat. Res 9:33–41.Google Scholar
Lyon, L. L., Keeling, J. W., and Dotray, P. A. 2004. Evaluation and adaption of the HADSS™ computer program in Texas Southern High Plains cotton. Weed Technol. 18:315–324.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Luschie, E. C. 2005. Justification for site-specific weed management based on ecology and economics. Weed Sci. 53:221–227.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. 9.1 ed. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Bennett, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program for weed management in nontransgenic and transgenic cotton. Weed Sci. 49:549–557.Google Scholar
Timmerman, C., Gerhards, R., and Kuhbauch, W. 2003. The economic impact of site-specific weed control. Precision Agric 4:249–260.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2005. Economic Research Service. Agricultural Chemicals and Production Technology: Pest Management. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgChemicals/pestmangement.htm. Accessed: April 18, 2009.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2008. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2007 Field Crops Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/homepage.do. Accessed: April 18, 2009.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Clewis, S. B., and Collins, J. 2005. Weed management in Libertylink and Roundup Ready Flex cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 58:16.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar