Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:09:07.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating an Automated Irrigation Control System for Site-Specific Herbigation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charlotte V. Eberlein ,
Bradley A. King  and
Mary J. Guttieri
Charlotte V. Eberlein*
Affiliation:
District III Cooperative Extension System, University of Idaho, Twin Falls Research and Extension Center, Twin Falls, ID 83303
Bradley A. King
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Mary J. Guttieri
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, Aberdeen, ID 83210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Site-specific herbigation using a linear-move irrigation system equipped with an automated irrigation control system was evaluated in a series of field trials conducted at the University of Idaho Aberdeen Research and Extension Center near Aberdeen, ID. In the first study, the experimental area was divided into site-specific management zones that were randomly assigned herbigation treatments of metolachlor at 0, 1.8, 2.7, or 3.6 kg ai/ha. In a second study, site-specific herbigation treatments of metribuzin at 0, 0.28, 0.42, or 0.56 kg ai/ha were applied. The tests covered a range in system flow rate from 29 to 90% of maximum design flow. Average metolachlor rates applied were within 1, 2, and 4% of the target 1.8, 2.7, and 3.6 kg/ha rates, respectively, and average metribuzin rates were on target at the 0.28 kg/ha rate and within 5 and 2% of the 0.42 and 0.56 kg/ha target rates, respectively. In a third study, potato (Solanum tuberosum) fields were divided into management zones, and low, medium, or high populations of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica) were seeded in each zone. Different rates of a metolachlor plus metribuzin mixture were herbigated in each zone—higher rates in zones with high populations and lower rates in zones with low populations. Weed control was excellent in all zones. Results suggest good potential for site-specific herbigation when linear-move or center-pivot irrigation systems are equipped with the automated irrigation control system.

Keywords

Metolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl) acetamidemetribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5-(4H)-oneIndian mustard, Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. et Coss. # BRSJU ‘Common Brown’foxtail millet, Setaria italica (L.) Beauv. # SETITpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Russet Burbank’ # SOLTUChemigationherbicide applicationprecision agriculturevariable-rate application technologyChenopodium albumAmaranthus retroflexusAMARECHEALCV, coefficient of variationDF, dry flowableEC, emulsifiable concentrate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 182 - 187
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

1 University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station paper 99710

References

Literature Cited

Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4: 279–283.Google Scholar
Chesters, G., Simsiman, G. V., Levy, J., Alhajjar, B. J., Fathulla, R. N., and Harking, J. M. 1989. Environmental fate of alachlor and metolachlor. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 110: 1–74.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C., Rhode, W. A., Fetzer, L. E., Scott, D. E. Sr., Sklany, T. E., and Swann, C. W. 1982. The effect of sprinkler irrigation on herbicide efficacy, distribution, and penetration in some coastal plain soils. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia College of Agriculture Experiment Stations Research Bull. 281. 27 p.Google Scholar
Gerhards, R., Wyse-Pester, D. Y., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Spatial stability of weed patches in agricultural fields. Proc. 3rd International Conf. on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. pp. 495–504.Google Scholar
Grover, R., Maybank, J., Caldwell, B. C., and Wolf, T. M. 1997. Airborne offtarget losses and deposition characteristics from a self-propelled, high speed and high clearance ground sprayer. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77: 493–500.Google Scholar
Hammond, M. W. and Neilan, R. 1992. Research for reduction of nitrate leaching into Columbia Basin groundwater. Ephrata, WA: Upper Grant Conservation District Research Report. 128 p.Google Scholar
King, B. A., Brady, R. A., McCann, I. R., and Stark, J. C. 1995. Variable rate water application through sprinkler irrigation. Proc. Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems, 2nd Annual Conf. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. pp. 485–493.Google Scholar
King, B. A., Stark, J. C., McCann, I. R., and Westermann, D. T. 1996. Spatially varied nitrogen application through a center pivot irrigation system. Proc. 3rd International Conf. on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
McCann, I. R., King, B. A., and Stark, J. C. 1997. Variable rate water and chemical application for continuous-move sprinkler irrigation systems. Appl. Eng. in Agric. 13: 609–615.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., Wyse, D. Y., and Martin, A. R. 1995. Managing spatially variable weed populations. In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Site Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. pp. 397–415.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1981. Conventional versus sprinkler application of metolachlor, alachlor, and chloramben on beans, potatoes, and sweet corn. In Young, J. R., ed. Proceedings of the 1st National Symposium on Chemigation, August 1981, Tifton, Georgia. Tifton, Georgia: University of Georgia Rural Development Center. pp. 32–37.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1986. Applying herbicides in irrigation water—a review. Crop Prot. 5: 43–65.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985a. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of metribuzin as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33: 868–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985b. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33: 874–881.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J., 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Prot. 9: 337–342.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. 1981. Research and experience with herbigation in west Texas. In Young, J. R., ed. Proceedings of the 1st National Symposium on Chemigation, August 1981, Tifton, Georgia. Tifton, Georgia: University of Georgia Rural Development Center. pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992. Value of information about weed distribution for improving postemergence control decisions. Crop Prot. 11: 547–554.Google Scholar