Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:49:40.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial distribution, temporal stability, and yield loss estimates for annual grasses and common ragweed (Ambrosia artimisiifolia) in a corn/soybean production field over nine years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sharon A. Clay ,
Bruce Kreutner ,
David E. Clay ,
Cheryl Reese ,
Jonathan Kleinjan  and
Frank Forcella
Bruce Kreutner
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
David E. Clay
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Cheryl Reese
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Jonathan Kleinjan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weeds generally occur in patches in production fields. Are these patches spatially and temporally stable? Do management recommendations change on the basis of these data? The population density and location of annual grass weeds and common ragweed were examined in a 65-ha corn/soybean production field from 1995 to 2004. Yearly treatment recommendations were developed from field means, medians, and kriging grid cell densities, using the hyperbolic yield loss (YL) equation and published incremental YL values (I), maximum YL values (A), and YL limits of 5, 10, or 15%. Mean plant densities ranged from 12 to 131 annual grasses m−2 and < 1 to 37 common ragweed m−2. Median weed densities ranged from 0 to 40 annual grasses m−2 and were 0 for common ragweed. The grass I values used to estimate corn YL were 0.1 and 2% and treatment was recommended in only 1 yr when the high I value and either the mean or median density was used. The grass I values used for soybean were 0.7 and 10% and estimated YL was over 10% all years, regardless of I value. The common ragweed I values were 4.5 and 6% for corn and 5.1 and 15.6% for soybean. On the basis of mean densities, fieldwide treatment would have been recommended in 6 of 9 yr but in no years when the median density was used. Recommendations on the basis of grid cell weed density and kriging ranged from > 80% of the field treated for grass weeds in 3 of 4 yr in soybean to < 20% of the field treated for common ragweed in 2002 and 2004 (corn). Grass patches were more stable in time, space, and density than common ragweed patches. Population densities and spatial distribution generally were variable enough so that site-specific information within this field would improve weed management decisions.

Keywords

Common ragweed, Ambrosia artimisiifolia L. AMBELcorn, Zea mays L. ZEAMAsoybean, Glycine max L. Merr. GLYMXEconomic thresholdgeostatisticsincremental yield losskrigingprecision agriculturesite-specific weed management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 380 - 390
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. 2000. Cultural systems to aid weed management in semiarid corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 14:630–634.Google Scholar
Banken, K. 2000. Influence of yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.) on corn (Zea mays L.) growth and western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, LeConte) development. . South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 128 p.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 44:258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro-Tendero, A. J. and Garcia-Torres, L. 1995. SEMAGI—an expert system for weed control decision making in sunflowers. Crop Prot 14:543–548.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. J. and Swanton, C. J. 2003. Nitrogen management will influence threshold values of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) in corn. Weed Sci 51:975–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1985. Changes in the weed flora of an arable field cultivated for 20 years. J. Appl. Ecol 22:491–501.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D. and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Evaluation of three empirical models depicting Ambrosia artemisiifolia competition in white bean. Weed Res 35:421–428.Google Scholar
Clay, S. A., Banken, K. R., Forcella, F., Ellsbury, M. M., Clay, D. E., and Olness, A. E. 2006. Influence of yellow foxtail (Setaria pumila) on corn (Zea mays) growth and yield. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. In press.Google Scholar
Clay, S. A., Lems, G. J., Clay, D. E., Forcella, F., Ellsbury, M. M., and Carlson, C. G. 1999. Sampling weed spatial variability on a fieldwide scale. Weed Sci 47:674–681.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Dessaint, F., and Forcella, F. 2000a. Evaluating field-scale sampling methods for the estimation of mean plant densities of weeds. Weed Res 40:411–430.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Forcella, F., and Johnson, G. A. 2000b. Spatial and temporal stability of weed populations over five years. Weed Sci 48:366–377.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Stoltenberg, D. E., Boerboom, C. M., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Predicting soybean YL in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) communities. Weed Sci 51:402–407.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 493 p.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci 105:513–521.Google Scholar
Cowbrough, M. J., Brown, R. B., and Tardif, F. J. 2003. Impact of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) aggregation on economic thresholds in soybean. Weed Sci 51:947–954.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Characterizing the spatial pattern of Abutilon theophrasti seedling patches. Weed Res 39:455–467.Google Scholar
Dille, J. A., Milner, M., Groeteke, J. J., Mortensen, D. A., and Williams, M. M. II. 2002. How good is your weed map? A comparison of spatial interpolators. Weed Sci 51:44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. Z., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankenship, E. E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci 51:408–417.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crop. Am. J. Altern. Agric 7:161–167.Google Scholar
Gaston, L. A., Locke, M. A., Zablotowicz, R. M., and Reddy, K. N. 2001. Spatial variability of soil properties and weed populations in the Mississippi Delta. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J 65:449–459.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.Google Scholar
Isaaks, E. H. and Srivastava, R. M. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 249–266, 278– 322.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Gotway, C. A. 1996. Spatial and temporal analysis of seedling populations using geostatistics. Weed Sci 44:704–710.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D., Young, L. J., and Martin, A. 1995. The stability of weed seedling population models and parameters in eastern Nebraska corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) fields. Weed Sci 43:604–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurado-Exposito, M., Lopez-Grandos, F., Garcia-Torres, L., Garia-Ferrer, A., de la Orden, M. Sanchez, and Atenciano, S. 2003. Multispecies weed spatial variability and site-specific management maps in cultivated sunflower. Weed Sci 51:319–328.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Westra, P. et al. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)–foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci 47:195–200.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. J. P. 1988. Field-scale estimates of grass weed populations in arable land. Weed Res 28:191–198.Google Scholar
Moechnig, M. J., Boerboom, C. M., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Growth interactions in communities of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), and corn. Weed Sci 51:363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ontario Ministry Agriculture and Food (OMAF) Staff. 2003. Publication 811, Agronomy Guide for Field Crops. www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/pub811.Google Scholar
Ott, L. 1977. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. North Scituate, MA: Wadsworth Publishing. 703 p.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J. and Cousens, R. D. 2001. Spatial distribution of weeds in arable crops: are current sampling and analytical methods appropriate? Weed Res 41:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Effect of weed interference and soil nitrogen on four maize hybrids. Agron. J 86:596–601.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. Impact of lamb's-quarters, common ragweed and green foxtail on yield of corn and soybean in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:821–828.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Brain, P. 1991. Long-term stability of distribution of Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. within cereal fields. Weed Res 31:367–373.Google Scholar