Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:40:49.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Grower Acceptance of Economic Thresholds for Weed Management in Illinois

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

George F. Czapar
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Springfield Extension Center, P.O. Box 8199, Springfield, IE 62791
Marc P. Curry
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Springfield Extension Center, P.O. Box 8199, Springfield, IE 62791
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crop Science Department, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801

Abstract

Although economic thresholds are often used to make insect control decisions, the use of thresholds for weed management has been limited. Surveys of growers, agricultural chemical dealers, and farm managers/rural appraisers helped identify limitations to grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management. Most growers were concerned about harvest problems due to weeds, with 64% identifying this factor as a major limitation. Landlord perception and weed seed production were identified by 38% of the growers as major limitations, while 36% of the growers listed general appearance of the field as reasons. In contrast, 75% of the agricultural chemical dealers and 63% of the farm managers surveyed listed field appearance as a major reason limiting grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management. Since grower concerns involve risk management and future profitability, economic weed thresholds that address long-term costs and benefits of weed control decisions may be more fully accepted.

Type
Education/Extension/Survey
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Blair, B. D. and Parochetti, J. V. 1982. Extension implementation of integrated pest management systems. Weed Sci. (Suppl.) 30:4853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browner, C. M., Rominger, R., and Kessler, D. A. 1993. Testimony of Carol Browner. Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and David A. Kessler, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, before Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives. September 22, 1993.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:4651.Google Scholar
Cate, J. R. and Hinkle, M. K. 1994. Integrated Pest Management: The Path of a Paradigm. The National Audubon Society Special Report. Washington, DC: National Audubon Society. 43 p.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol. 6:191195.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2:1320.Google Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Gray, M. E. 1995. Survey of integrated pest management practices in central Illinois. J. Prod. Agric. 8:483486.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636644.Google Scholar
Gray, M. E. 1990. Integrated pest management in Illinois: a look at the last 15 years and into the 1990s. In Sixteenth Annual Illinois Crop Protection Workshop: Proceedings, March 13–15, 1990. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service. pp. 6071.Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, C. S., Coli, W. M., and Van Zee, V. 1994. IPM certification in Massachusetts through a collaboration of state and federal agencies. In Proceedings of the Second National Integrated Pest Management Symposium/Workshop, April 18–22, 1994, Las Vegas, NV. Washington. DC: USDA-ES IPM Task Force. 189 p.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. 1992. Weed thresholds: the space component and considerations for herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 6:205212.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. 1992. NebHERB: An Economic Threshold-based Weed Management Program. Lincoln. NE: University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 448 p.Google Scholar
Shaw, W. C. 1982. Integrated weed management systems technology for pest management. Weed Sci. (Suppl.) 30:212.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill. 312 p.Google Scholar
Stern, V. M., Smith, R. F., Van den bosch, R., and Hagen, K. S. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:91101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thill, D. C., Lish, J. M., Callihan, R. H., and Bechinski, E. J. 1991. Integrated weed management—a component of integrated pest management: a critical review. Weed Technol. 5:648656.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Illinois Agricultural Statistics—Annual Summary. Bull. 95-1. Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Agriculture. 141 p.Google Scholar
Vandeman, A., Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Jans, S., and Lin, B. H. 1994. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 707. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 26 p.Google Scholar