Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:16:55.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Use of a Grower Survey for Estimating Weed Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Sys. Prog., Ohio Coop. Ext. Serv., Ohio State Univ., Columbus 43210
Mary Ann Berry
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Sys. Prog., Ohio Coop. Ext. Serv., Ohio State Univ., Columbus 43210

Abstract

A random mail survey of Ohio growers was conducted to determine the geographic distribution of weeds across Ohio and the influence of production practices on the severity of agronomic weed problems. Statewide, the ten most severe weed problems, in descending order, were Canada thistle > foxtail spp. > velvetleaf = common ragweed > common cocklebur > giant ragweed = annual morningglory spp. > quackgrass = common lambsquarters = Pennsylvania smartweed. Distribution of most weeds varied geographically. Infestations of common and honeyvine milkweeds, hemp dogbane, and tree seedlings increased as tillage was reduced. Infestations of common cocklebur and common ragweed decreased as tillage was reduced. As crop rotation became more diverse, infestations of velvetleaf, common cocklebur, giant ragweed, Pennsylvania smartweed, and jimsonweed decreased. Where rotations included forage or hay crops, infestations of large crabgrass, common chickweed, wild carrot, and common dandelion increased.

Type
Education
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Weed-Crop Ecology. Breton Publishers, Massachusetts. p. 381383.Google Scholar
2. Brown, S. M., and Whitwell, T. 1988. Influence of tillage on horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Technol. 2:269270.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D., and Daniel, T. C. 1988. Influence of tillage systems on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) density and control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:642647.Google Scholar
4. Haas, H., and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. p. 5776 in LeBaron, H., and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 401 p.Google Scholar
5. Holt, J. S., and LeBaron, H. M. 1990. Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol. 4:141149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Koskinen, W. C., and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 41:365370.Google Scholar
7. Pike, D. R., and Colwell, C. 1982. 1982 Illinois major crop pesticide use and pest survey report. Univ. of Illinois. 40 p.Google Scholar
8. Waldron, A. C. 1986. Pesticide use on major crops in the Ohio River Basin of Ohio and summary of state usage – 1986. Ohio Coop. Ext. Serv. Ext. Bull. 799. 267 p.Google Scholar
9. Waldron, A. C. 1986. Surveying application of potential agricultural pollutants in the Lake Erie Basin of Ohio: pesticide use on major crops – 1986. Ohio Coop. Ext. Serv. Ext. Bull. 787. 209 p.Google Scholar
10. Wicks, G. A., Popken, D. H., and Lowry, S. R. 1989. Survey of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) stubble fields sprayed with herbicides after harvest in 1986. Weed Technol. 3:244254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Willard, T. R., Hall, D. W., Shilling, D. G., Lewis, J. A., and Currey, W. L. 1990. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) distribution on Florida highway rights-of-way. Weed Technol. 4:658660.Google Scholar