Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:25:19.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) aggregation on economic thresholds in soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Cowbrough ,
Ralph B. Brown  and
François J. Tardif
Michael J. Cowbrough
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Ralph B. Brown
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One approach to site-specific weed control is to map weeds within a field and then divide the field area into smaller grid units. The decision to apply a herbicide to individual grid units, or decision units, is made by using yield loss models to establish an economic threshold level. However, decision units often contain weed populations with aggregated distributions. Many yield loss models have not considered this because experiments dealing with weed–crop competition typically assume uniform weed distributions. Therefore, these models may overestimate yield losses. Field experiments conducted in 1999 and 2000 compared the effects of common ragweed having a uniform distribution vs. an aggregated distribution on soybean seed yield, moisture content, and dockage. Field experiment data were used to calculate and compare economic thresholds for both distributions. Economic thresholds that considered drying costs and dockage also were compared. There was no significant difference in I parameters (yield loss as density approaches zero) between the two ragweed distributions in either year. Seed moisture content and dockage increased with increasing common ragweed densities, but increases were not significant at the break-even yield loss level. Economic threshold values were similar for both distributions with differences between aggregated and uniform of 0.14 and 0.01 plants m−2 in 1999 and 2000, respectively. The economic threshold values were reduced by 0.01 to 0.06 plants m−2 when drying costs and dockage were considered.

Keywords

Common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELsoybean, Glycine max L. ‘First Line 2801R’Competitiondensitydistributioninterferencesite-specific weed management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 947 - 954
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, J. M. and McWhorter, C. G. 1976. The economics of common cocklebur control in soybean production. Weed Sci 24:397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density of corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1990. The effect of weed distribution on predictions of yield loss. J. Appl. Ecol 27:735–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. B. and Steckler, J. P. G. A. 1995. Prescription maps for spatially variable herbicide applications in no-till corn. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng 38:1659–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and Johnson, G. A. 1997. The nature and consequence of weed spatial distribution. Weed Sci 45:364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CGC] Canadian Grain Commission. 2001. Official Grain Grading Guide, August 1, 2001. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Grain Commission, p. 448.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 43:375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regression for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol 6:898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinocloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 46:533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. L. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:1337–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhards, R., Wyse-Pester, D. Y., and Johnson, G. A. 1997. Characterizing spatial stability of weed populations using interpolated maps. Weed Sci 45:108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudy, H. J., Bennett, K. A., Brown, R. B., and Tardif, F. J. 2001. Evaluation of site-specific weed management using a direct-injection sprayer. Weed Sci 49:359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G. 1996. Incorporating spatial pattern of harmful organisms into crop loss models. Crop Prot 15:407–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Wyse-Pester, D. Y. 1998. Economic importance of managing spatially heterogeneous weed populations. Weed Technol 12:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, R. E. 1975. Tables for an approximate test for outliers in linear models. Technometrics 17:473–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Dieleman, J. A. 1998. Why weed patches persist: dynamics of edges and density. Pages 14–19 in Medd, R. W. and Pratley, J. E. eds. Proceedings of the Precision Weed Management in Crops and Pasture Conference. May 5–6, 1998, Wagga Wagga, Australia. Adelaide, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., Wyse, D. Y., and Martin, A. R. 1995. Managing spatially variable weed populations. Pages 397–416. in Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E. eds. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. March 27–30, 1994, Minneapolis, MN. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F., Elmore, C. L., Rejmanek, M., and Akey, W. C. 2001. Spatial arrangement, density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: I. Crop growth and yield. Weed Sci 49:61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2002. Agricultural Statistics for Ontario. www.gov.on.ca/OMAF/english/stats/crops/index.html.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. 1999a. Ontario Soybean Variety Trials 1999. Publication 802. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, p. 8.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. 1999b. Field Crop Recommendations 1999–2000. Publication 296. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, p. 142.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. 1989. The herbicide dose-response curve and the economics of weed control. Pages 927–935 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, UK: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci 42:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Prot 9:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Garrett, K. A., and Westra, P. 1995. Influence of weed density and distribution on corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Sci 43:215–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallinga, J., Groeneveld, R. M. W., and Lotz, L. A. P. 1998. Measures that describe weed spatial patterns at different levels of resolution and their application for patch spraying of weeds. Weed Res 38:351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol 5:674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Coble, H. D. 1992. Modeling weed distribution for improved postemergence control decisions. Weed Sci 40:546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar