Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:24:52.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Weed Size Matter? An Indiana Grower Perspective about Weed Control Timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William G. Johnson ,
Kevin D. Gibson  and
Shawn P. Conley
William G. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Kevin D. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Shawn P. Conley
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wgj@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corn and soybean growers across Indiana were surveyed to assess their perceptions about the importance of preplant and POST weed control timing, focusing mainly on soybean production. Despite studies demonstrating the importance of planting into a clean field, almost a third of Indiana growers do not think it is important to plant into a weed-free seedbed and 74% do not use residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean production systems. Growers who farmed less than 200 ha were more likely to overestimate the ability of soybean to tolerate weed interference than growers who farmed more hectares. Growers who manage smaller farms were also more likely to use a one-pass weed control program than larger growers. This suggests that yield losses to weed interference may be greater for smaller farms than for larger farms. Weed size and density were the most common criteria used by growers to decide when to apply herbicides. This suggests that field scouting plays an important role in the decision-making process of growers. However, a substantial proportion of growers apply POST herbicides to large common lambsquarters and giant ragweed in an attempt to minimize the number of trips across the field for weed control. Delayed control of these species likely contributes to reduced crop yields, higher application rates, and to the survival of treated plants. Opportunities to improve control and increase yields through more optimal herbicide use appear possible for Indiana corn and soybean growers.

Keywords

Glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrGlyphosate-resistant soybeanglyphosate-resistant weedsoybean yieldsurvey
Type
Extension/Outreach
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 542 - 546
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

Aref, S. and Pike, D. R. 1998. Midwest farmers perceptions of crop pest infestations. Agron. J. 90:819–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J., Johnson, B., Gibson, K., and Weller, S. 2004. Crop rotation and tillage system influence late-season incidence of giant ragweed and horseweed in Indiana soybean. Online. Crop Manage. DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-02-BR.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, L., Morrison, I. N., and Kelner, D. 1997. Field and producer survey of ACCase resistant wild oat in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 77:709–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, S. P., Stoltenberg, D. E., Boerboom, C. M., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Predicting soybean yield loss in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) communities. Weed Sci. 51:402–407.Google Scholar
Creech, J. E. and Johnson, W. G. 2006. Survey of broadleaf winter weeds in Indiana production fields infested with soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines). Weed Technol. 20:1066–1075.Google Scholar
CTIC (Conservation Tillage Information Center) 2004. National Crop Residue Management Survey. West Lafayette, IN 47907. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/crm.html. Accessed May 13, 2006.Google Scholar
Czapar, G. G., Currey, M. P., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management in Illinois. Weed Technol. 11:828–831.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.Google Scholar
Davis, V., Johnson, B., and Nice, G. 2004. Welcome to the home of horseweed. http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/marestail/index.htm. Accessed May 21, 2006.Google Scholar
Dirks, J. T., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Wiebold, W. J., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Reduced rates of sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron and glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:618–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, R. W., Roeth, F. W., Nelson, L. A., Shapiro, C. A., Klein, R. N., Knezevic, S. Z., and Martin, A. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agron. J. 93:408–412.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hilger, D. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hilger, D. 2006. Farmer perceptions of weed problems in corn and soybean rotation systems. Weed Technol. 20:751–755.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. 1995a. Catch 22: Mutually exclusive strategies for delaying/preventing polygenically vs. monogenically inherited resistance. in Ragsdale, N.N., Kearney, P.C. and Plimmer, J.R., eds. Options 2000—Eighth International Congress of Pesticide Chemistry. Washington, DC American Chemical Society. 330–349.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. 1995b. Creeping resistances: the outcome of using marginally effective or reduced rates of herbicides. in Brighton Crop Protection conference—Weeds. Brighton, UK Brighton Press. 587–590.Google Scholar
Johnson, B., Barnes, J., Gibson, K., and Weller, S. 2004. Late season weed escapes in Indiana soybean fields. Online. Crop Manage. DOI:10.1094/CM-2004-0923-01-BR.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G. and Gibson, K. D. 2006. Glyphosate resistant weeds and weed management strategies: an Indiana grower perspective. Weed Technol. 20:768–772.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Stachler, J. M., Johnson, W. G., Nice, G. R. W., and Bauman, T. T. 2006. Weed Control Guide for Ohio and Indiana. Purdue Univ. Coop. Ext. Pub. WS-16 189.Google Scholar
Mulugetta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. 2003. Use of soybean production surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol. 17:195–201.Google Scholar
USDA 1996. Indiana Agricultural Statistics. Chemical Use. http://www.nass.usda.gov/in/annbul/9697/pg45.htm. Accessed May 13, 2006.Google Scholar
USDA-NASS 2002. Indiana Census of Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/in/st18_1_009_010.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2006.Google Scholar
USDA 2005. Indiana Agricultural Statistics. Chemical Use. http://www.nass.usda.gov/in/annbul/0405/pg47.pdf. Accessed May 13, 2006.Google Scholar
USDA-NASS 2005. Crop Production Report. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov:8080/QuickStats/index2.jsp Accessed May 16, 2006.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Wiese, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Influence of interference from a mixed weed species stand on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1293–1204.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, R., Harrison, S. K., and Reidel, R. M. 2000. Weed hosts of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) in Ohio. Weed Technol. 14:156–160.Google Scholar
Wait, J. D. 2002. Weed management in no-till, glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Columbia, MO University of Missouri–Columbia. 91. M.S. thesis.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:559–564.Google Scholar