Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:09:28.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Single-Time Survey Method to Predict the Daily Weed Density for Weed Control Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roberta Masin ,
Vasileios P. Vasileiadis ,
Donato Loddo ,
Stefan Otto  and
Giuseppe Zanin
Roberta Masin*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Agronomy and Crop Science, Padova University, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
Vasileios P. Vasileiadis
Affiliation:
National Research Council (CNR) Institute of Agro-Environmental and Forest Biology, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
Donato Loddo
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Agronomy and Crop Science, Padova University, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
Stefan Otto
Affiliation:
National Research Council (CNR) Institute of Agro-Environmental and Forest Biology, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
Giuseppe Zanin
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Agronomy and Crop Science, Padova University, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decision-making processes must indicate if, how, and when weed control should be practiced. So far, Decision Support Systems (DSSs) for weed control to prevent crop yield losses can guide decisions on “if” and “how.” Experience shows that farmers need a DSS that can also guide when to treat, but this can only be done if the actual weed density observed in the field is known during the crop cycle. Emergence models allow the prediction of daily density, but precision depends on the survey date. This study focuses on the estimation of the date of the survey for the best prediction of the daily density throughout the crop cycle. The predicted daily density of each species can be used by DSSs without any further survey, saving time and money and improving the use of the DSSs. Results showed that the best date is when the actual density of each weed reaches or exceeds 50% emergence, and this is earlier than the critical point date, supporting the validity of the date estimation method. The possibility to provide specific advice for farmers considering a proper mortality rate of weed seedlings is then discussed. The ability to optimize the date of sampling can improve the reliability of decision-making tools for integrated weed management, in agreement with the European Union goal of sustainable use of pesticides and more environmentally sustainable cropping systems through the use of integrated pest management.

Keywords

Weed densityweed samplingDecision Support Systemsemergence predictionhydrothermal time
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 270 - 275
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. 2008. Weed seedling emergence and survival as affected by crop canopy. Weed Technol. 22:736–740.Google Scholar
Berti, A., Bravin, F., and Zanin, G. 2003. Application of decision-support software for postemergence weed control. Weed Sci. 51:618–627.Google Scholar
Berti, A. and Zanin, G. 1997. GESTINF: a decision model for post-emergence weed management in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Crop Prot. 16:109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, A., Zanin, G., Baldoni, G., Grignani, C., Mazzoncini, M., Mintemurro, P., Tei, F., Vazzana, C., and Viggiani, P. 1992. Frequency-distribution of weed counts and applicability of a sequential sampling method to integrated weed management. Weed Res. 32:39–44.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practice challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Chauvel, B., Gauvrit, C., and Munier-Jolain, N. M. 2007. Construction and evaluation of ALOMYSYS modelling the effects of cropping systems on the blackgrass life-cycle: from seeding to seed production. Ecol. Model. 201:283–300.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. 1981. Competitive plants, communal plants, and yield in wheat crops. Pages 223–247 in Evans, L. T., and Peacock, W. J., eds. Wheat Science—Today and Tomorrow. London Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
European Parliament. 2009. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0071:0086:EN:PDF. Accessed: January 21, 2011.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Quintanilla, C., Quadranti, M., Kudsk, P., and Barberi, P. 2008. Which future for weed science. Weed Res. 48:297–301.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Benech Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res. 67:123–139.Google Scholar
Grundy, A. C. 2003. Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res. 43:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London Academic Press. 892 p.Google Scholar
Jones, R. E. and Medd, R. W. 2005. A methodology for evaluating risk and efficacy of weed management technologies. Weed Sci. 53:505–514.Google Scholar
Masin, R., Cacciatori, G., Zuin, M. C., and Zanin, G. 2010. AlertInf: emergence predictive model for weed control in maize in Veneto. Ital. J. Agrometeor. 1:5–9.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Calloway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, S., Masin, R., Casari, G., and Zanin, G. 2009. Weed-corn competition parameters in late-winter sowing in Northern Italy. Weed Sci. 57:194–201.Google Scholar
Rainbolt, C. R., Thill, D. C., Yenish, J. P., and Ball, D. A. 2004. Herbicide-resistant grass weed development in imidazoline-resistant wheat: weed biology and herbicide rotation. Weed Technol. 18:860–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydahl, P., Been, T., Berti, A., Evans, N., Gouache, D., Gutsche, V., Jensen, J. E., Kapsa, J., Levay, N., Munier-Jolain, N., Nibouche, S., and Raynal, M. 2009. Review of New Technologies Critical to Effective Implementation of Decision Support Systems and Farm Management Systems. http://www.endure-network.eu/about_endure/all_the_news/dss_helping_farmers_make_smart_decisions. Accessed: January 21, 2011.Google Scholar
Slaughter, D. C., Giles, D. K., and Downey, D. 2008. Autonomous robotic weed control systems: a review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 61:63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Mahoney, K. J., Chandler, K., and Gulden, R. H. 2008. Integrated weed management: knowledge-based weed management systems. Weed Sci. 56:168–172.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single-species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345–57.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Wiles, L. J., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Weed management decision models: pitfalls, perceptions, and possibilities of the economic threshold approach. Weed Sci. 50:411–424.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Berti, A. 2001. Malerbe componente persistente degli agroecosistemi. Pages 125–145 in Catizone, P., and Zanin, G., eds. Malerbologia. Bologna Patron Editore.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Berti, A., and Riello, L. 1998. Incorporation of weed spatial variability into the weed control decision-making process. Weed Res. 38:107–118.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar