Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:20:02.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Merits of a weed-sensing sprayer to control weeds in conservation fallow and cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw ,
Louis J. Molnar  and
C. Wayne Lindwall
Robert E. Blackshaw*
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
Louis J. Molnar
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
C. Wayne Lindwall
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
*
Corresponding author. blackshaw@em.agr.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 1993 through 1995 to determine potential reductions in herbicide use and associated cost savings by utilizing a weed-sensing sprayer, named Detectspray, to control weeds throughout the fallow season and to control perennial weeds after crop harvest. The Detectspray system gave comparable weed control to conventional broadcast spraying on 80% of the application dates and reduced glyphosate/dicamba use over the fallow season by 19 to 60%. This reduced herbicide use resulted in cost savings of $6 to $32 ha−1. A fallow treatment that combined two herbicide applications with the Detectsprayer plus one to two wide-blade tillage operations was less costly than conventional tillage at two of 11 sites and at all sites retained more surface crop residues to reduce the risk of erosion. Postharvest glyphosate use on quackgrass with the Detectsprayer was reduced 50 to 78% compared to broadcast applications and resulted in cost savings of $16 to $25 ha−1. Clopyralid use on Canada thistle with the Detectsprayer was reduced 71 to 80%, with cost savings of $44 to $50 ha−1. The Detectspray system is a useful tool to effectively manage weeds in conservation fallow and reduced tillage cropping systems.

Keywords

ClopyraliddicambaglyphosateCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. CIRARquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREDetectsprayherbicide savingsinfrared sensorreduced tillageselective sprayerAGRRECIRAR
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 120 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Relative costs of a weed-activated versus conventional sprayer in northern Great Plains fallow. Weed Technol. 8: 50–57.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. National Survey of Conservation Tillage Practices Including Other Tillage Types. West Lafayette, IN: Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC). 153 pp.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Lindwall, C. W. 1995a. Management systems for conservation fallow on the southern Canadian prairies. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75: 93–99.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Lindwall, C. W. 1995b. Species, herbicide and tillage effects on surface crop residue cover during fallow. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75: 559–565.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., Chevalier, D. F., and Lindwall, C. W. 1998. Factors affecting the operation of the weed-sensing Detectspray system. Weed Sci. 46: 127–131.Google Scholar
Felton, W. L. 1990. Use of Weed Detection for Fallow Weed Control. Conservation Tillage. Brookings, SD: Great Plains Agricultural Council Bull. 131. pp. 241–244.Google Scholar
Felton, W. L., Doss, A. F., Nash, P. G., and McCloy, K. R. 1991. A microprocessor controlled technology to selectively spot spray weeds. Pages 427–431 in Automated Agriculture for the 21st Century Symposium. Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering. Fargo, ND: Concord.Google Scholar
Hanson, G. E. and Wicks, G. A. 1992. Use of the Detectspray in Nebraska. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 67–71.Google Scholar
Hanson, G. E., Wicks, G. A., and Kappler, B. F. 1994. Successes and failures with the Detectspray. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 49: 71–81.Google Scholar
Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., Izaurralde, R. C., and Moulin, A. P. 1994. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation on the Canadian prairies. Pages 305–328 in Carter, M. R., ed. Conservation Tillage in Temperate Agroecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lindwall, C. W. and Anderson, D. T. 1981. Agronomic evaluation of minimum tillage systems for summer fallow in southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61: 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyles, L. and Allison, B. E. 1981. Equivalent wind-erosion protection from selected crop residues. Trans. ASAE 24: 405–407.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed., Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Smika, D. E. 1990. Fallow management practices for wheat production in the Central Great plains. Agron. J. 82: 319–323.Google Scholar
Smika, D. E. and Wicks, G. A. 1968. Soil water storage during fallow in the Central Great Plains as influenced by tillage and herbicide treatments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 32: 591–595.Google Scholar
Smith, E. G., Peters, T. L., Blackshaw, R. E., Lindwall, C. W., and Larney, F. J. 1996. Economics of reduced tillage in crop-fallow systems. Can. J. Soil Sci. 76: 411–416.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Pages 173–177 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Zentner, R. P. and Lindwall, C. W. 1982. Economic evaluation of minimum tillage systems for summer fallow in southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 631–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar