Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:16:34.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Evaluation of a Bioeconomic Model for Weed Management in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas D. Buhler ,
Robert P. King ,
Scott M. Swinton ,
Jeffery L. Gunsolus  and
Frank Forcella
Douglas D. Buhler*
Affiliation:
Nat. Soil Tilth Lab., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric Res. Serv., 2150 Pammel Drive, Ames, IA 50011
Robert P. King
Affiliation:
Dep. Applied Econ., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Scott M. Swinton
Affiliation:
Dep. Agric. Econ., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Jeffery L. Gunsolus
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota. St. Paul, MN 55108
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conserv. Res. Lab., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Morris, MN 56267
*
* Corresponding author; email [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A bioeconomic weed management model was tested as a decision aid for weed control in corn at Rosemount, MN, from 1991 to 1994. The model makes recommendations for preemergence control tactics based on the weed seed content of the soil and postemergence decisions based on weed seedling densities. Weed control, corn yield, herbicide active ingredient applied, and economic return with model-generated treatments were compared to standard herbicide and mechanical control treatments. Effects of these treatments on weed populations and soybean yield the following year were also determined. In most cases, the model-generated treatments controlled weeds as well as the standard herbicide treatment. The quantity of herbicide active ingredient applied decreased 27% with the seed bank model and 68% with the seedling model relative to the standard herbicide treatment. However, the frequency of herbicide application was not reduced. In 1 yr, seed bank model treatments did not control weeds as well as the standard herbicide or seedling model treatments. Corn yields reflected differences in weed control. Net economic return to weed control was not increased by using model-generated control recommendations. Weed control treatments the previous year affected weed density in the following soybean crop. In 2 of 3 yr, these differences did not after weed control or soybean yield. Although tactics differed, the bioeconomic model generally resulted in weed control and corn yield similar to the standard herbicide. The model was responsive to differing weed populations, but did not greatly after economic returns under the weed species and densities in this research.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3751’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Glenwood.’Expert systemsintegrated weed managementweed controlweed population dynamics
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 915 - 923
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.)

Footnotes

Joint contribution from U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv.; Deps. of Agron. and Plant Genet., and Applied Econ., Univ. Minnesota; and Dep. Agric. Econ., Michigan State Univ. Univ. Minnesota Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Paper 22,240.

References

Literature Cited

Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Maxwell, B. D. 1993. Seed separation and enumeration from soil using K2CO3-centrifugation and image analysis. Weed Sci. 41: 298–302.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J. 87: 507–512.Google Scholar
Carey, J. B. and Kells, J. J. 1995. Timing of total postemergence herbicide applications to maximize weed control and corn (Zea mays) yield. Weed Technol. 9: 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. and Buhler, D. D. 1993. Emergence from seedbanks of 13 weed species. Abstr. Weed Soc. Am. p. 93.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Multi-year validation of a decision aid for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 44: 650–661.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1995. Corn weed management. Pages 9–21 in Durgan, B. R., Gunsolus, J. L., Becker, R. L., and Dexter, A. G. Cultural and chemical weed control in field crops. Univ. Minnesota Extension Serv., AG-BU-3157-S.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior year's weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 611–614.Google Scholar
King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34: 972–979.Google Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39: 124–129.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Peterson, P., and Hoeffer, F. 1990. WEEDIR: Weed control directory. Version 3.1. Minnesota Extension Service AG-CS-2163. Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Black, J. R. 1991. SOYHERB-A computer program for soybean herbicide management. Agron. J. 83: 921–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1968. The changing population of viable weed seed in arable soil. Weed Res. 8: 253–256.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32: 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, R. H. Jr. and Watson, H. J. 1983. Bit by bit: toward decision support systems. Pages 15–32 in House, W. C., ed., Decision support systems: a data-based, model-oriented, user-developed discipline. Petrocelli, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994a. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agric. Systems 44: 313–335.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994b. The value of weed population information in a dynamic setting: the case of weed control. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75: 36–46.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. A., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: Decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83: 413–417.Google Scholar
Winkle, M. E., Leavitt, J.R.C., and Burnside, O. C. 1981. Effects of weed density on herbicide absorption and bioactivity. Weed Sci. 29: 405–409.Google Scholar