Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:13:31.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of alternative weed management systems in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation: weed densities, crop yield, and economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clarence J. Swanton ,
Anil Shrestha ,
David R. Clements ,
Barbara D. Booth  and
Kevin Chandler
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
David R. Clements
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada V2Y 1Y1
Barbara D. Booth
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Kevin Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 9-yr (1990–1998) study was conducted at Woodstock, ON, Canada, to evaluate weed densities, crop yields, and gross returns in a modified no-tillage (no primary tillage) corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation under three weed management treatments: (1) minimum, preplant application of glyphosate followed by mechanical control; (2) integrated weed management (IWM), preplant application of glyphosate followed by band application of preemergence herbicides plus mechanical control; and (3) conventional, preplant application of glyphosate followed by broadcast application of preemergence herbicides in corn and soybean. In wheat the minimum and IWM treatments had no additional weed control measures other than the preplant application of glyphosate, whereas the conventional treatment had a broadcast application of a postemergence herbicide. Weed densities were assessed each year, (except in 1990) once during the growing season in corn and soybean and immediately after crop harvest in wheat. Adjusted gross return was calculated as the gross revenue minus the unique costs for weed control for each of the treatments. Weed densities were greater in the minimum treatment compared with the IWM or conventional treatment in all crops. Weed densities in the IWM and conventional treatments did not differ. There was no apparent “buildup” of weed density with time in the rotation resulting from weed escapes. Hence, these data challenge current thinking that weed densities increase with time if weed escapes are allowed to go to seed. Corn and soybean yields in the IWM and conventional treatments did not differ. However, the minimum treatment had the lowest corn and soybean yields. Winter wheat yield was not affected by the treatments. All weed management treatments provided similar gross returns for each crop and for the rotation. Thus, the minimum treatment consisting of glyphosate applied preplant followed by shallow interrow tillage appeared to be a viable option, especially if practiced in a farming system capable of ensuring adequate timing of cultivation operations.

Keywords

GlyphosateimazethapyrlinuronmetolachlorMCPB and MCPAcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Integrated weed managementlong-term crop rotationsadjusted gross returnsidentity preservedweed density buildup
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 504 - 511
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

Alm, D. M., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 2000. Weed suppression for weed management in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) production systems. Weed Technol. 14:713–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Profit Tracker 1999 Report & Project Summary. Ontario, Canada: Innovative Farmers Association of Ontario. 68 p.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, J. 1994. Future Harvest: Pesticide-free Farming. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 159 p.Google Scholar
Bosnić, 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. 45:557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1999. Expanding the context of weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1993. Weed science—the step child. Weed Technol. 7:515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Webster, T. M., Herms, C. P., and Regnier, E. E. 1999. Development of weed IPM: levels of integration for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:239–267.Google Scholar
Carter, A. D., Hollis, J. M., Thompson, T.R.E., Oakes, D. B., and Binney, R. 1991. Pesticide contamination of water sources: current policies for protection and a multidisciplinary proposal to aid future planning. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds 2:491–498.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44:314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1996. Weed community ecology: tedious sampling or relevant science? Phytoprotection 77:29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, W. A. and Durkalski, J. T. 1998. No tillage production agriculture and carbon sequestration in a typic fragiudalf soil of northeastern Ohio. Pages 59–71 In Lal, R., Kimble, J. M., Follet, R. F., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Management of Carbon Sequestration in Soil. Boca Ration, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1991. Biology and control of jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), a review. Weed Technol. 5:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eadie, A., Swanton, C. J., Shaw, J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. Integration of cereal cover crops in ridge-tillage corn production. Weed Technol. 6:553–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallivan, G. J., Surgeoner, G. A., and Kovach, J. 2001. Pesticide risk reduction on crops in the province of Ontario. J. Environ. Qual. 30:798–813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R. M., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Surgeoner, G. A., and Roberts, W. P. 1994. Herbicide reduction in North America: in Canada, an opportunity for motivation and growth in weed management. Weed Technol. 8:366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrix, P. E., Parmelee, R. W., Crossley, D. A. Jr., Coleman, D. C., Odum, E. P., and Groffman, P. M. 1986. Detritus food webs in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. BioScience 36:374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Effectiveness of soil applied herbicides with mechanical weed control for conservation tillage systems in soybean. Agron. J. 89:579–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, G. J. and Brust, G. E. 1989. Ecology of low-input, no-tillage agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27:331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Forcella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Sci. 47:175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:365–370.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–341 In Jackson, L. E., ed. Ecology in Agriculture. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1988. Economic analysis of four weed management systems. Weed Sci. 36:846–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, D. J. and Baltensperger, D. 1995. Cropping systems control winter annual grass weeds in winter wheat. J. Prod. Agric. 8:535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, C. S. 1992. Addressing public fears over pesticides. Weed Technol. 6:471–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, S. 1993. No-till farms supplant furrowed fields, cutting erosion but spreading herbicides. Wall Street J. July 8:B1, B6.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44:865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, P. J. 1983. Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38:162–165.Google Scholar
Popay, A. I., Cox, T. I., Ingle, A., and Kerr, R. 1994. Effects of soil disturbance on weed seedling emergence and its long-term decline. Weed Res. 34:403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B., Preston, C., Bryan, I. B., and Jutsum, A. R. 1997. Herbicide resistance: impact and management. Adv. Agron. 58:57–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40:645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7:286–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Vyn, T. J., Chandler, K., and Shrestha, A. 1998. Weed management strategies for no-till soybean (Glycine max) grown on clay soils. Weed Technol. 12:660–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torstensson, L. 1985. Behaviour of glyphosate in soils and its degradation. Pages 137–150 In Grossbard, E. and Atkinson, D., eds. The Herbicide Glyphosate. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Wall, E. and Swanton, C. 2000. International standards for environmental management. Page 59 In Proceedings of the Third International Weed Science Congress. Corvallis, OR: International Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol. 6:162–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoschke, A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed Technol. 8:376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar