Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:34:26.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Benefits and Risks of Economic vs. Efficacious Approaches to Weed Management in Corn and Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Allan S. Hamill ,
Susan E. Weaver ,
Peter H. Sikkema ,
Clarence J. Swanton ,
Francois J. Tardif  and
Gabrielle M. Ferguson
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Susan E. Weaver*
Affiliation:
Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Francois J. Tardif
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Gabrielle M. Ferguson
Affiliation:
Global Agricultural Business Enterprises Inc., Alvinston, Ontario, Canada N0N 1C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 3-yr study was conducted on nine farms across southern Ontario to evaluate the risks and benefits of different approaches to weed management in corn and soybean. Weed control decisions were based on field scouting and recommendations from the Ontario version of HADSS™, the herbicide application decision support system. Treatments were selected to maximize profit (economic threshold approach) or to maximize yield (highest treatment efficacy). Reduced rates of the high efficacy treatment for each field also were included. Weed density before and after treatment, crop yields, weed seed return, and the effect of weed control decisions on weed density 1 yr after treatment were assessed. Crop yield varied among years and farms but was not affected by weed control treatment. Weed control at 28 d after treatment (DAT) was often lower and weed density, biomass, and seed production 70 DAT were often higher with the profit maximization approach compared with the yield maximization approach. However, weed density 1 yr later, after each cooperator had applied a general weed control program, did not vary significantly among the previous year's weed control treatments. Reduced rates of the high efficacy treatments did not lead to increased weed problems the next year, despite lower weed control and increased weed seed production in some years. During the 3 yr of the study, weed control costs with the profit maximization approach were approximately Can$45/ha less than with the yield maximization approach.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrEconomic thresholdnet benefitreduced rateweed seed rainDAT, days after treatmentHADSS, herbicide application decision support systemPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 723 - 732
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

Bennet, A. C., Price, A. J., Sturgill, M. C., Buol, G. S., and Wilkerson, G. G. 2003. HADSS™, Pocket HERB™, and WebHADSS™: decision aids for field crops. Weed Technol. 17:412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boström, U. and Fogelfors, H. 2002. Long-term effects of herbicide-application strategies on weeds and yield in spring-sown cereals. Weed Sci. 50:196–203.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1994. Interrow cultivation to reduce herbicide use in corn following alfala without tillage. Agron. J 86:66–72.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Gunsolus, J. L., and Forcella, F. 1996. Field evaluation of a bioeconomic model for weed management in corn. Weed Sci. 44:915–923.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2000. Response of Setaria faberi demographic processes to herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 48:445–453.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Norquay, H. M. 1997. Seed production and seed bank dynamics in subthreshold velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) populations. Weed Sci. 45:85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddux, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:834–840.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
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior year's weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:611–614.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Schreiber, M. M., and Hickman, M. V. 1996. Residual weed populations: innocent bystanders or potential time bombs?. in Brown, H., Cussans, G. W., Devine, M. D. et al., eds. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress; Copenhagen, Denmark. Flakkebjerg, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology. Pp. 1261–1266.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Swinton, S. M., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Adaptation and evaluation of the WEEDSIM weed management model for Michigan. Weed Sci. 47:338–348.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541–545.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Clements, D. R., Booth, B. D., and Chandler, K. 2002. Evaluation of alternative weed management systems in a modified no-tillage corn-soybean-winter wheat rotation: weed densities, crop yield, and economics. Weed Sci. 50:504–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shreshta, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop Prod 2:9–29.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Renner, K. A., and Kells, J. J. 2002. On-farm comparison of three postemergence weed management decision aids in Michigan. Weed Technol. 16:691–698.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. L. and Hartzler, R. G. 2000. Effect of seed bank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol. 14:261–267.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Westra, P. 1996. Integrated weed management systems for corn (Zea mays) production in Colorado—a case study. Weed Sci. 44:423–428.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. Impact of lamb's-quarters, common ragweed and green foxtail on yield of corn and soybeans in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:821–828.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
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2002. Influence of simulated seed rain on the seed bank of wild-proso millet. Weed Sci. 50:340–343.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., 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
Zoschke, A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed Technol. 8:376–386.Google Scholar