Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:11:35.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmer Perceptions of Weed Problems in Corn and Soybean Rotation Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. D. Gibson ,
W. G. Johnson  and
D. E. Hillger
K. D. Gibson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
W. G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
D. E. Hillger
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kgibson@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corn and soybean growers across Indiana were surveyed in 2003 to determine their perceptions of the importance of weed problems in various crop rotations. Growers were asked to list the three most problematic weeds in the following rotation systems: soybean and corn planted in alternate years (SC) and corn (CC) or soybean (SS) planted to the same field for 2 or more years. Although some summer annuals and perennials (common lambsquarters, Canada thistle, and common cocklebur) and winter annuals (chickweed and henbit) were considered problematic by at least 10% of growers in all three systems, there were differences among systems in the relative importance of weed species. Giant ragweed was considered problematic by at least 30% of SC and CC growers but by less than 10% of SS growers. Horseweed was listed as a problematic summer annual by 13% of SS growers but by only 3% of CC growers. Purple deadnettle was listed by 15% of CC growers but by less than 6% of SC and SS growers. Perennial dicots were more problematic in SS than in CC. Annual and perennial grasses were more problematic in CC than in SC or SS. Despite these differences, the results of this survey suggest that the cumulative effect of weed management practices in corn and soybean rotation systems in Indiana has been the promotion of larger seeded, broadleaf, summer annual species.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. #3 CIRARchickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. # STEMEcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANTHcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifidia L. # AMBTRhenbit, Lamium amplexicaule L. # LAMAMhorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. # ERICApurple deadnettle, Lamium purpureum L.corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrpestsweed rankingswinter annualsummer annualperennialALS, acetolactate synthaseCC, continuous corn rotationCTIC, Conservation Technology Information Centerfb, followed byGR, glyphosate-resistantIASS, Indiana Agricultural Statistics ServiceSC, soybean/corn rotationSS, continuous soybean rotation
Type
Extension/Outreach
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 751 - 755
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

Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol. 12:531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bàrberi, P., Cozzani, A., Macchia, M., and Bonari, E. 1998. Size and composition of the weed seedbank under different management systems for continuous maize cropping. Weed Res. 38:319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Bekech, M. M. 1993. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn (Zea mays). Agronomy (Trends in Agric. Sci.) 1:67–71.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8:231–237.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–547.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98–101.Google 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.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Childs, D. J., Blackwell, R. L., and Geiger, C. R. 1993. Survey of problem weeds in Indiana: 1992. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin WS10. 4 p.Google Scholar
Childs, D. J., Jordan, T. N., and Blackwell, R. L. 1997. Survey of problem weeds in Indiana: 1996. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin WS10. 4 p.Google Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center. 2005. National Crop Residue Management Survey Conservation Tillage Data:. Web page: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/CRM.html. Accessed: June 21, 2005.Google Scholar
Dale, M. T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors including weed management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot. 70:1931–1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delorit, R. J. 1970. An illustration taxonomy manual of weed seeds. River Falls, WI: Agronomy Publications.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:174–185.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities—fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42:184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, C. A. 1989. The importance of integration in sustainable agricultural systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27:25–35.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1977. The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. 52:107–145.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. 2003. Giant ragweed emergence patterns:. Web page: http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2003/ragweedresults.htm. Accessed: September 1, 2005.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2005. Herbicide resistant weeds. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds: Web page: http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: June 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Heatherly, L. G., Elmore, C. D., and Spurlock, S. R. 2002. Weed management systems for conventional and glyphosate-resistant soybean with and without irrigation. Agron. J. 94:1419–1428.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1982. The long-term effects of fertilizer application and three rotations on weed communities in wheat (after 21–22 Years at Indian-Head, Saskatchewan). Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:741–750.Google Scholar
Karlen, D. L., Varvel, G. E., Bullock, D. G., and Cruse, R. M. 1994. Crop rotations for the 21st Century. in Sparks, D. L., ed. Advances in Agronomy. Volume 54. San Diego: Academic. Pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
Leblanc, M. L., Cloutier, D. C., Stewart, K. A., and Hamel, C. 2003. The use of thermal time to model common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) seedling emergence in corn. Weed Sci. 51:718–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res. 40:27–47.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. A. and Staver, C. P. 2001. Crop diversification for weed management. in Liebman, M. A., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 322–374.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.Google Scholar
Loux, M. and Stachler, J. 2005. Lambsquarters control issues in Roundup Ready soybeans. C.O.R.N. 2005–01 January 11, 2005–January 25, 2005: Web page: http://corn.osu.edu. Accessed June 25, 2005.Google Scholar
Nice, G. R. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2005. Indiana's top ten most problematic weeds:. Web page: http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience. Accessed September 1, 2005.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2003. Use of soybean surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol. 17:195–201.Google Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14:413–422.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:320–326.Google 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.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Friisoe, G. Y., and Bolick, M. R. 1995. Weeds of Nebraska and the Great Plains. 2nd ed. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Comstock.Google Scholar