Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:04:05.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Variability Associated by Economic Thresholds for Soybeans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Troy A. Bauer ,
David A. Mortensen ,
Gaila Wicks ,
Thomas A. Hayden  and
Alex R. Martin
Troy A. Bauer
Affiliation:
Field Res. Agriculturist, Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Field Res. Agriculturist, Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Gaila Wicks
Affiliation:
Field Res. Agriculturist, Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Thomas A. Hayden
Affiliation:
Field Res. Agriculturist, Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Field Res. Agriculturist, Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 to determine the stability of crop loss functions across site by year environments. Environment was a significant source of variation for the soybean crop loss function as influenced by velvetleaf, but not as influenced by tall waterhemp and common sunflower. Weed density was a highly significant source of variation for all weed species studied. Regressions between percent soybean seed yield reductions and weed populations were linear. The velvetleaf interference regression equations were divided into two groups, those with high soybean-yielding intercepts and those with low-yielding intercepts, to explain the variance observed across environments. The regression equation for the high-yielding intercept group was Ŷ = 4.24X while the low-yielding group was Ŷ = 2.14X, where Y is percent soybean yield reduction and X is weed density per 10.7 m of soybean row. Tall waterhemp and common sunflower regression equations were determined to be Ŷ = 1.37X and Ŷ = 6.52X, respectively. Confidence intervals were used to account for the variance associated with the mean regression equation for each model and to develop economic threshold models that include risk aversion principles.

Keywords

Common sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.# HELANvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHtall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer # AMATUsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr., ‘Amsoy 71′Weed interferenceeconomic thresholdscrop loss functionenvironmental variabilityHELANABUTHAMATU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 564 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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

1. Auld, B. A. and Tisdell, C. A. 1987. Economic thresholds and response to uncertainty in weed control. Agric. Syst. 25:219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chisaka, H. 1977. Weed damage to crops: Yield loss due to weed competition. Pages 1–16 in Integrated Control of Weeds, Fryer, J. D. and Matsunaka, S., eds. Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
3. Coble, H. D., Williams, F. M., and Ritter, R. L. 1981. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:339–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Quart. 2:13–20.Google Scholar
5. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
6. Forcella, F. 1990. Breeding soybeans tolerant to weed competition. 1990 WSSA Abstr. 30:51.Google Scholar
7. Jose, H. D., Bitney, L. L., Clark, R. T., Duey, D. D., Klein, R. N., Mohrmann, J. R., Powell, T. A., Robb, J. G., Selley, R. A., and Sheffield, L. F. 1990. Estimated crop and livestock production costs. Nebraska Coop. Ext. EC 90–872.Google Scholar
8. Marra, M. C. and Carlson, G. A. 1983. An economic threshold model for weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 31:604–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Mortensen, D. A. and Coble, H. D. 1989. The influence of soil water content on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:76–83.Google Scholar
10. Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., and Cothren, J. T. 1987. Effect of water stress on photosynthetic parameters of soybean (Glycine max) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:15–21.Google Scholar
11. SAS Institute. 1985. Pages 817–824 in SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
12. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Pages 261–264 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
13. Reichelderfer, K. H. 1980. Economics of integrated pest management: discussion. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 62:1012–1013.Google Scholar
14. Weaver, S. E. 1986. Factors affecting threshold levels and seed production of jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) in soyabeans (Glycine max). Weed Res. 26:215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar