Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:26:46.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Soybean Production Surveys to Determine Weed Management Needs of South Carolina Farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Edisto Research and Education Center, Clemson University, 64 Research Road, Blackville, SC 29817
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean producers of South Carolina were surveyed in 2000 through mail and on-farm visits to determine which production practices limit seed yields the most. Production systems have direct implications on weed management practices, difficulties, and future problems. When asked to describe two extension and research focus areas that would improve current soybean production, the number one response was improved weed control strategies. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that weeds were the pest that most limited soybean yield. Sicklepod, Palmer amaranth, morningglory species, common cocklebur, yellow nutsedge, and Texas panicum were considered the most problematic weeds. More than half the producers (68%) used glyphosate-resistant soybean, with one-half of these farmers producing soybean in row widths > 51 cm. Of the farmers who grew conventional soybean, 10% used narrow rows (≤ 51 cm), whereas 22% used wide rows (> 51 cm). Only 27% of the farmers who planted glyphosate-resistant soybean used a soil-applied herbicide. Forty-three percent of farmers based the need for a postemergence herbicide on weed size, 21% used no repeatable method, 21% relied on days after soybean emergence, 11% depended on soybean size or groundcover, and only 4% used a combination of weed density and size. Thirty-five percent of the farmers did not rotate soybean with another crop. In fields where soybean parasitic nematodes reduced soybean growth or caused plant death, late-season weed infestations were often exacerbated, especially in the absence of nonresidual herbicides. Specific reasons for difficulty in managing weeds in soybean may include a diverse weed spectrum, which is difficult to control with a single herbicide, the use of wide-row soybean, the lack of crop rotation, the prevalence of nematodes that directly affect crop development and, in turn, weed management, the lack of an appropriate criterion for timing postemergence herbicide applications, and the greater attention paid to production of more valuable crops. Educational efforts addressing weed management problems and association of such problems with other production practices are needed if weed management is to be improved and weed-induced yield losses minimized.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTmorningglory species, Ipomoea sppPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. # AMAPAsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. Irwin and Barneby # CASOBTexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTEyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrGlyphosate-resistant soybeanon-farm surveytransgenic soybean
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 195 - 201
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

Aref, S. and Pike, D. R. 1998. Midwest farmers' perceptions of crop pest infestations. Agron. J. 90: 819–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. C., Shaw, D. R., and Medlin, C. R. 1998. Roundup Ready programs versus conventional programs: efficacy, varietal performance, and economics. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 272–273.Google Scholar
Bararpour, M. T. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Effect of tillage and interference on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) population, seed production, and seedbank. Weed Sci. 46: 424–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35: 1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Mester, T. C. 1991. Effect of tillage systems on the emergence depth of giant (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 39: 200–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects of seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39: 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14: 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management in Illinois. Weed Technol. 11: 828–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W. D. 2000. Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in US Agriculture: Farm Level Effects. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Rep. 786 (AER-786): Web page: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/. Accessed: April 2000.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6: 587–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Toler, J. E., and Hunnicutt, H. D. 1998. Palmer amaranth (Amaranth palmeri) resistance in South Carolina to the ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 30.Google Scholar
Hayes, R. M., Mueller, T. C., Willis, J. B., and Montgomery, R. F. 2002. Glyphosate-tolerant horseweed and factors influencing its control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 119–120.Google Scholar
Khalilian, A., Garner, T. H., Musen, H. L., Dodd, R. B., and Hale, S. A. 1988. Energy for conservation tillage in Coastal Plain soils. Trans ASAE 31: 1333–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Bai, Y. 1999. Competitive attributes of A. sativa, T. aestivum, and H. vulgare are conserved in no-till cropping systems. Weed Sci. 47: 712–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, S. A., Drye, C. E., Saunders, J. A., Shipe, E. R., and Haldbrendt, J. M. 1993. Plant parasitic nematodes on soybean in South Carolina. Suppl. J. Nematol. 25: 890–894.Google ScholarPubMed
Mickelson, J. A. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Weed control using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in narrow and wide row soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, E. C. and Sherrick, S. 1999. Florida pusley (Richardia scabra) control in Roundup Ready soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 57–58.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Wilson, H. P., and York, A. C. 1997. Growers' results with Roundup Ready soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50: 1.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Effect of seeding rate of drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) on seed yield and gross profit margin. Weed Technol. 15: 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Effect of irrigation, soybean density, and glyphosate on hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference in soybean. Weed Technol. 16: 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S. A. and Oliver, L. R. 2000. Weed control programs in drilled glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 14: 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powles, S. B., Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., Dellow, J. J., and Preston, C. 1998. Evolved resistance to glyphosate in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in Australia. Weed Sci. 46: 604–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14: 204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. K., Pendergrass, R., and Hayes, R. M. 1999. Economic analysis of alternative herbicide regimes on Roundup Ready soybeans. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Interaction of glyphosate with chlorimuron, fomesafen, imazethapyr, and sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 46: 652–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1996. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1995 Field Crops Summary: Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/. Accessed: March 1996.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001a. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2001 Field Crops Summary: Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/. Accessed: May 2001.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001b. Crop Production: 2001 Annual Summary: Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/. Accessed: October 2001.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49: 703–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11: 308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar