Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:40:35.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Evaluation of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Control in a Winter Wheat-Fallow Rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Allen F. Wiese ,
Clay D. Salisbury ,
Brent W. Bean ,
Monty G. Schoenhals  and
Steve Amosson
Allen F. Wiese
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Univ., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Clay D. Salisbury
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Univ., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Brent W. Bean
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Univ., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Monty G. Schoenhals
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Univ., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Steve Amosson
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Univ., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field bindweed infests millions of hectares in the Great Plains greatly reducing productivity and value of land. The standard practice for field bindweed control is sweep tillage at 3 wk intervals combined with one or two annual 2,4-D) applications during the 14 mo fallow period in a winter wheat-fallow crop rotation. This was compared to tillage and 2,4-D in conjunction with dicamba or a mixture of picloram+2,4-D applied once during the first October of the first 14 mo fallow period. Also, three no-tillage systems were included using glyphosate+2,4-D at monthly intervals. Two of the treatments were supplemented with dicamba, or picloram+2,4-D as in the sweep tillage system. All treatments controlled field bindweed in two fallow periods and two winter wheat crops, and increased winter wheat yields to about twice the control. Sweep tillage at 3 wk intervals combined with 2,4-D resulted in $36 ha−1 profit for an owner-operator compared to $15 ha−1 loss with no herbicide or tillage treatment. On average no-tillage lost $35 ha−1. Other treatments, although controlling field bindweed, lost from 35 to $186 ha−1. To determine if long-term benefit after control was achieved, average yields for the area were used to calculate profits using normal farming practices. Profits were 136, 78, and $-50 ha−1, respectively, for sweep tillage and 2,4-D, no-tillage, and the untreated check. In a standard 33:67 owner-tenant rental, profits to the owner for the control period were 90, −33, and $43 ha−1, respectively for tillage and 2,4-D, no-tillage, and untreated check. The tenant lost from $24 to 69 ha−1 for the three systems indicating owners must modify rental agreements during a field bindweed control program.

Keywords

Dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinepicloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acidfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L.♯ CONARwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘TAM 200.’Sweep tillageCONAR
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 622 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Brown, E. O. and Porter, H. 1942. The viability and germination of seeds of Convolvulus arvensis L. and other perennial weeds. Pages 473–504 in Iowa Res. Bull. 294.Google Scholar
2. Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18: 590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Federal Register. 1987. Highly erodible land and wetland conservation: Final rule and notice of finding no significant impact. 52(180): 35193–35208.Google Scholar
4. Findley, D. S. and Waldrop, J. H. 1992. Pages 9, 14, 55 in Texas Custom Rates Statistics. Compiled by USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
5. Gooding, J. R., Jordan, L. S., and Isom, W. H. 1967. Low rates of Tordon for field bindweed control. Down to Earth 22(4): 6–7.Google Scholar
6. Hamner, C. L. and Tukey, H. B. 1944. The herbicidal action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid and 2,4-5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid on bindweed. Science 100: 154–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Heering, D. C. and Peeper, T. F. 1988. Control of field bindweed with imazapyr in winter wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41: 93.Google Scholar
8. Jones, O. R. and Johnson, G. L. 1993. Page 9 in Cropping and tillage systems for dryland grain production. USDA, ARS, Conservation and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, TX 79012. Research Rep. 93–10.Google Scholar
9. Phillips, W. M. 1950. The effect of 2,4-D on field bindweed. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 7: 30–31.Google Scholar
10. Phillips, W. M. 1961. Control of field bindweed by cultural and chemical methods. U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1249. 30 pp.Google Scholar
11. Phillips, W. M. 1978. Field bindweed: The weed and the problem. Proc. North Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 33: 140–141.Google Scholar
12. Phillips, W. M. and Timmons, F. L. 1954. Bindweed: How to control it. Kansas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 366. 24 pp.Google Scholar
13. Russ, O. G. and Anderson, L. W. 1960. Field bindweed control by combinations of cropping, cultivation, and 2,4-D. Weeds 8: 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Schoenhals, M. G., Wiese, A. F., and Wood, M. L. 1990. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with imazapyr. Weed Technol. 4: 771–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Stahlman, P. W. 1978. Field bindweed control in the Central Great Plains: A review. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33: 150–152.Google Scholar
16. Schweizer, E. E., Swink, J. F., and Hiekes, P. E. 1978. Field bindweed control in corn and sorghum with dicamba and 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 26: 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Swan, D. G. 1982. Long-term field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with two cropping systems. Weed Sci. 30: 476–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wiese, A. F. and Lavake, D. 1986. Control of field bindweed with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 34: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wiese, A. F., Gibson, J., and Lavake, D. 1967. Controlling large patches of field bindweed infestations with repeated applications of Tordon. Down to Earth 23(2): 2, 37, 38, 39.Google Scholar
20. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1955. Bindweed control in the Panhandle of Texas. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 802. 8 pp.Google Scholar
21. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1959. Bindweed (Convolvulus anvensis) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D and competitive crops. Agron. J. 51: 672–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1962. Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10: 58–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar