The critical period for weed control (CPWC) adds value to integrated weed management by identifying the period during which weeds need to be controlled to avoid yield losses exceeding a defined threshold. However, the traditional application of the CPWC does not identify the timing of control needed for weeds that emerge late in the critical period. In this study, CPWC models were developed from field data in high-yielding cotton crops during three summer seasons from 2005 to 2008, using the mimic weed, common sunflower, at densities of two to 20 plants per square meter. Common sunflower plants were introduced at up to 450 growing degree days (GDD) after crop planting and removed at successive 200 GDD intervals after introduction. The CPWC models were described using extended Gompertz and logistic functions that included weed density, time of weed introduction, and time of weed removal (logistic function only) in the relationships. The resulting models defined the CPWC for late-emerging weeds, identifying a period after weed emergence before weed control was required to prevent yield loss exceeding the yield-loss threshold. When weeds emerged in sufficient numbers toward the end of the critical period, the model predicted that crop yield loss resulting from competition by these weeds would not exceed the yield-loss threshold until well after the end of the CPWC. These findings support the traditional practice of ensuring weeds are controlled before crop canopy closure, with later weed control inputs used as required.

Glyphosate-tolerant and glyphosate-resistant weeds are becoming increasingly problematic in cotton fields in Australia, necessitating a return from a glyphosate dominated system to a more integrated approach to weed management. The development of an integrated weed management system can be facilitated by identifying the critical period for weed control (CPWC), a model that enables cotton growers to optimize the timing of their weed control inputs. Using data from field studies conducted from 2003 to 2015, CPWC models using extended functions, including weed biomass in the relationships, were developed for the mimic weeds, common sunflower and Japanese millet, in high-yielding, fully irrigated cotton. A multispecies CPWC model was developed after combining these data sets with data for mungbean in irrigated cotton, using weed height and weed biomass as descriptors in the models. Comparison of observed and predicted relative cotton-lint yields from the multispecies CPWC model demonstrated that the model reasonably described the competition from these three very different mimic weeds, opening the possibility for cotton growers to use a multispecies CPWC model in their production systems.

Research using the critical period for weed control (CPWC) has shown that high-yielding cotton crops are very sensitive to competition from grasses and large broadleaf weeds, but the CPWC has not been defined for smaller broadleaf weeds in Australian cotton. Field studies were conducted over five seasons from 2003 to 2015 to determine the CPWC for smaller broadleaf weeds, using mungbean as a mimic weed. Mungbean was planted at densities of 1, 3, 6, 15, 30, and 60 plants m−2 with or after cotton emergence and added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 degree days of crop growth (GDD). Mungbean competed strongly with cotton, with season-long interference; 60 mungbean plants m−2 resulted in an 84% reduction in cotton yield. A dynamic CPWC function was developed for densities of 1 to 60 mungbean plants m−2 using extended Gompertz and exponential curves including weed density as a covariate. Using a 1% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC defined by these curves extended for the full growing season of the crop at all weed densities. The minimum yield loss from a single weed control input was 35% at the highest weed density of 60 mungbean plants m−2. The relationship for the critical time of weed removal was further improved by substituting weed biomass for weed density in the relationship.

Field studies were conducted over five seasons from 2004 to 2015 to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding, irrigated cotton using a competitive mimic grass weed, Japanese millet. Japanese millet was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 10, 20, 50, 100, and 200 plants m−2. Japanese millet was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 degree days of crop growth (GDD). Data were combined over years. Japanese millet competed strongly with cotton, with season-long interference resulting in an 84% reduction in cotton yield with 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. The data were fit to extended Gompertz and logistic curves including weed density as a covariate, allowing a dynamic CPWC to be estimated for densities of 10 to 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. Using a 1% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC commenced at 65 GDD, corresponding to 0 to 7 d after crop emergence (DAE), and ended at 803 GDD, 76 to 98 DAE with 10 Japanese millet plants m−2, and 975 GDD, 90 to 115 DAE with 200 Japanese millet plants m−2. These results highlight the high level of weed control required throughout the cropping season in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of weed control.

Field studies were conducted over six seasons to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding cotton, using common sunflower as a mimic weed. Common sunflower was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 plants m−2. Common sunflower was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 growing degree days (GDD) after planting. Season-long interference resulted in no harvestable cotton at densities of five or more common sunflower plants m−2. High levels of intraspecific and interspecific competition occurred at the highest weed densities, with increases in weed biomass and reductions in crop yield not proportional to the changes in weed density. Using a 5% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC extended from 43 to 615 GDD, and 20 to 1,512 GDD for one and 50 common sunflower plants m−2, respectively. These results highlight the high level of weed control required in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of control.

Field studies were conducted in southern Ontario to determine the critical period of weed control in grain corn and the influence of weed interference on corn leaf area. The Gompertz and logistic equations were fitted to data representing increasing durations of weed control and weed interference, respectively. The beginning of the critical period varied from the 3- to 14-leaf stages of corn development However, the end of the critical period was less variable and ended on average at the 14-leaf stage. Weed interference reduced corn leaf area by reducing the expanded leaf area of each individual leaf and accelerating senescence of lower leaves. In addition, weed interference up to the 14-leaf stage of corn development impeded leaf expansion and emergence in 1989.

Field trials were carried out in 1989 and 1990 at St-Augustin, near Québec City, Canada, to determine the critical periods of quackgrass control in potato submitted to three levels of infestation. Potato yield losses due to quackgrass interference increased with quackgrass infestation and length of duration of interference. Quackgrass interference influenced marketable tuber yields more than total tuber yields. Duration of the critical period varied depending on the level of quackgrass infestation and year. Based on an arbitrary 5% level of marketable yield loss, the critical period started at ca. 15 days after emergence (DAE) of potato at low level of infestation, and at ca. 3 DAE at medium level of infestation. At high level of infestation, the critical period began prior to the emergence of potato. The end of the critical period of quackgrass removal was extremely variable across quackgrass infestation level and year and ranged from 23 to 68 DAE of potato at a 5 % yield loss level. It appears that onset of interference varied less than the end of it, indicating that early quackgrass control is necessary to prevent yield loss.

Field studies were conducted at three locations over 2 yr in southern Ontario to determine the critical period of weed control in soybean. This period generally consisted of two discrete periods, a critical weed-free period and a critical time of weed removal. The critical weed-free period was relatively short in duration and consistent across locations and years. A period of weed control lasting up to the fourth node growth stage (V4), approximately 30 days after emergence (DAE), was adequate to prevent a yield loss of more than 2.5%. The critical time of weed removal was variable across locations and years and ranged, for example, from the second node growth stage (V2) to the beginning pod growth stage (R3), approximately 9 to 38 DAE, at a 2.5% yield loss level. A phenologically based period of most rapid yield loss due to weed interference occurred from beginning bloom stage (R1) to beginning seed stage (R5). The short and consistent critical weed-free period indicates the duration of residual herbicide control necessary in soybean and supports use of nonresidual, postemergence herbicides and mechanical weed control.

Field studies were conducted in 1989 and 1990 at St-Augustin, Quebec, Canada, to determine the economic threshold density of quackgrass in potato. Potato yield losses due to quackgrass interference increased with quackgrass population density. Potato yield ranged from 33 to 73% in 1989, and from 19 to 44% in 1990. The relationship between potato yield losses and quackgrass densities was described by a rectangular hyperbolic function. Dry weight of quackgrass proved to be the best predictor of potato yield loss compared to shoot number. The interference thresholds for 10% potato yield loss amounted to 25 shoots m−2 or 20 g total dry biomass m−2. The economic threshold varied between 0.04 and 2 shoots m−2 or 0.0165 and 1.5 g total dry biomass m−2, depending on the variables considered.

Prickly lettuce is an annual weed that germinates in both the fall and the spring. It is often found in no-till soybeans and winter wheat in Ontario, Canada, as well as along the edges of fields. Field studies were conducted from 2001 to 2004 to estimate crop yield losses, and to characterize the phenology and seed production of prickly lettuce in relation to time of emergence. Prickly lettuce had a large impact on soybean yield, with losses of 60 to 80% at densities of 50 plants m−2 or more. Prickly lettuce density estimated to cause a 10% soybean yield loss varied from 0.2 plants m−2 in 2002 to 1.2 plants m−2 in 2003 and 2004. In winter wheat, prickly lettuce at densities up to 200 plants m−2 caused no detectable yield loss in this study. Plants that emerged in the fall generally were larger, flowered earlier. and produced more seeds than those emerging in spring, but size and fecundity were strongly density-dependent. The number of flowers produced per plant could be estimated from the height of the main stem. Seed production per plant ranged from 2,200 to 67,000 in soybeans, and up to 87,000 in a noncrop area at the edge of the field. Winter wheat harvest interrupted prickly lettuce flowering, and only about 25 to 30% of the plants present in the wheat crop survived harvest and flowered in untreated stubble. These plants produced less than 4,000 seeds per plant. Postharvest control with glyphosate, mowing, or cultivation prevented prickly lettuce seed production in wheat stubble. This study suggests that prickly lettuce populations could build up quickly in continuous no-till soybeans, but rotation with winter wheat and control of plants at the edge of the field would help to limit population growth.

Weed management decisions based on weed threshold models offer the opportunity to reduce herbicide use by allowing the possibility of forgoing treatment or lowering rates. Weed thresholds based on a relative leaf-cover model were tested during a 4-yr period at two locations. Two 1.62-ha fields, planted to conventional and glyphosate-resistant corn (2004, 2005, 2007) or soybean (2006), were divided in 900 m2 sections. Herbicides were applied postemergence to each of these sections with either variable rates based on weed thresholds, or constant full rates. Variable herbicide rates included: no application, half rate, or full rate. Relative weed cover values of 0.2 and 0.4 (corn) or 0.1 and 0.3 (soybean) served as thresholds for incremental rates. Digital images were used to evaluate the relative weed cover. Weed density was assessed before and after herbicide application. Weed seed production was estimated for two species in 2004 and 2005. No difference in crop yield, relative weed cover, weed density, or weed seed production was observed between conventional and glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. During the first year, herbicide use reduction was obtained (−85.4%) with marginal crop yield loss (5 to 15%). In the subsequent 3 yr, preherbicide weed densities increased and concomitant increases in relative weed cover values did not allow more than a 10% overall reduction in herbicide use. This threshold model designed to maintain crop yields within a given year did not allow significant reduction in herbicide use during the following 3 yr. Residual weed populations most likely replenished the seed bank to levels that allowed weed densities to increase afterward. Increased weed density over time in plots treated with full rates of herbicide every year also indicated that a single postemergence herbicide treatment was not sufficient to contain weed populations at low levels every year in this corn–soybean rotation.

This research was aimed at understanding how far and how fast glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth will spread in cotton and the consequences associated with allowing a single plant to escape control. Specifically, research was conducted to determine the collective impact of seed dispersal agents on the in-field expansion of GR Palmer amaranth, and any resulting yield reductions in an enhanced GR cotton system where glyphosate was solely used for weed control. Introduction of 20,000 GR Palmer amaranth seed into a 1-m2 circle in February 2008 was used to represent survival through maturity of a single GR female Palmer amaranth escape from the 2007 growing season. The experiment was conducted in four different cotton fields (0.53 to 0.77 ha in size) with no history of Palmer amaranth infestation. In the subsequent year, Palmer amaranth was located as far as 114 m downslope, creating a separate patch. It is believed that rainwater dispersed the seeds from the original area of introduction. In less than 2 yr after introduction, GR Palmer amaranth expanded to the boundaries of all fields, infesting over 20% of the total field area. Spatial regression estimates indicated that no yield penalty was associated with Palmer amaranth density the first year after introduction, which is not surprising since only 0.56% of the field area was infested with GR Palmer amaranth in 2008. Lint yield reductions as high as 17 kg ha−1 were observed 2 yr after the introduction (in 2009). Three years after the introduction (2010), Palmer amaranth infested 95 to 100% of the area in all fields, resulting in complete crop loss since it was impossible to harvest the crop. These results indicate that resistance management options such as a “zero-tolerance threshold” should be used in managing or mitigating the spread of GR Palmer amaranth. This research demonstrates the need for proactive resistance management.

The critical period of weed control for crops grown under conventional tillage systems has been well studied, and the results generated by these studies have been proven to be very useful in developing ecologically and economically sound weed management practices. However, these management systems may not be directly applicable under no-till situations because the species composition, total amount, and temporal pattern of seedling emergence change substantially with tillage. The objective of this study was to identify the critical period of weed control for soybean and corn in fields that had been under no-till management for 1 yr. Although estimates of the critical period for a crop vary from year to year and site to site, some interesting comparisons can be made between no-till and conventional tillage. The start of the critical period in no-till corn was stable, usually beginning at the six-leaf stage. The end of the critical period was more variable ranging from the 9- to 13-leaf stage. The critical period for corn under no-till conditions tended to start and end earlier than under conventional tillage practices. In soybean, we were unable to identify a critical period at one of the sites. At the other location (sandy loam soil), the critical period was estimated to begin at the first or second node developmental stage, whereas the end was determined to be at the R1 stage (early flowering). The critical period in soybean was longer than that observed under conventional tillage.

Widespread use of crop yield loss models based on weed density has been limited on account of spatial and temporal variability. Furthermore, research characterizing crop yield loss associated with two or more weed species is lacking for many cropping systems. Therefore, research was conducted to characterize giant foxtail and common lambsquarters leaf area, height, and shoot volume in soybean, to quantify the relative competitive ability of giant foxtail and common lambsquarters in a mixed–weed species environment, and to assess weed density, weed relative leaf area, and weed relative volume as predictors of soybean yield loss. Based on weed density, coefficient estimates of percent soybean yield loss as giant foxtail or common lambsquarters densities approached zero differed between years. In contrast, coefficient estimates of maximum soybean yield loss were similar between years. Based on weed relative leaf area, estimates of giant foxtail or common lambsquarters damage coefficients differed between years. Similarly, estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with common lambsquarters leaf area differed between years, whereas estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with giant foxtail leaf area did not change over time within a growing season or between years. Based on weed relative volume, estimates of giant foxtail or common lambsquarters damage coefficients differed between years. Similarly, estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with common lambsquarters volume differed between years, whereas estimates of maximum soybean yield loss associated with giant foxtail volume did not change over time within a growing season or between years. Based on weed density, weed relative leaf area, or weed relative volume, giant foxtail was more competitive than common lambsquarters in terms of soybean yield loss. Temporal variability of weed density, weed relative leaf area, and weed relative volume indicates that additional parameters may be required to accurately predict weed–crop interactions in a multiple–weed species community.

Smellmelon is becoming a problem weed in southern Texas and Louisiana cotton-producing areas. Experiments evaluating the density and duration of smellmelon competition are necessary for the recommendation of appropriate control practices to minimize yield loss. In 1999 and 2000, field experiments were initiated to determine the density, critical period of competition, and potential control measures for smellmelon in cotton. Although the degree of competition differed between the years, similar trends were observed with respect to smellmelon density. As few as 2 or 3 smellmelon plants 10 m−1 row reduced yield at least 17% each year. When densities were increased to 5 or 10 plants 10 m−1 row, yield reductions increased to at least 34%. Results from the duration of smellmelon competition in 1999 and 2000 indicated that cotton should remain smellmelon free for 1 to 7 wk after planting (WAP) and 2.5 to 6 WAP, respectively. Results from the control studies indicate that smellmelon size at application influences control. Early-season control strategies are necessary to reduce yield losses associated with smellmelon competition.

Soybean and annual weed competition studies were conducted over 2 yr in Balcarce, Argentina, to define the critical period of weed control and to compare yield losses in soybean, when weeds competed in the total cropping area (row plus furrow) or only in the furrow. In the first year, broad-leaf weeds were more abundant than annual grasses, but in the second year, grasses were more abundant. Critical weed-free periods required to prevent yield losses of 2.5 and 10% were long and consistent for both years and for both types of competition, lasting between 50 and 61 d after crop emergence (DAE) or the V8 to V9 and R2 to R3 soybean growth stages, respectively. No differences in predicted yield for both places of competition was found when weeds grew after the V4 or later crop growth stages (35 DAE). The critical periods of weed removal to prevent equivalent yield losses were different in both years. Varying between 1 DAE in 1986–1987 and 30 DAE in 1988–1989, for 2.5% yield losses, corresponding to growth stages between V0 and V3 to V4, respectively. For yield losses lower than 10%, the critical periods of weed removal varied between 15 DAE in 1986–1987 and 35 DAE in 1988–1989, corresponding to the V2 and V4 crop growth stages, respectively. Nonsignificant differences in predicted yield were found between places of competition, if weeds were removed before V4 (35 DAE), maintaining yield losses lower than 20%.