Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T07:43:05.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of decision-support software for postemergence weed control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Antonio Berti ,
Francesco Bravin  and
Giuseppe Zanin
Francesco Bravin
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Agronomia Ambientale e Produzioni Vegetali dell'Università di Padova, Agripolis, 35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
Giuseppe Zanin
Affiliation:
Istituto di Biologia Agroambientale e Forestale, sezione di Malerbologia, C.N.R., Agripolis, 35020 Legnaro (Padova), Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

GESTINF is a decision tool for postemergence weed control based on the equivalent density approach. Using observed weed densities just before treatment, the program estimates the economic return from the treatment, thus indicating whether to treat or not and, if a treatment is needed, the most economical weed control solution. Each treatment is also characterized by an environmental pollution index. GESTINF has been tested in wheat and soybeans on a farm in northeastern Italy with a total cropping area of 60 ha of wheat and 40 ha of soybean. For both crops, weed control followed the suggestions of GESTINF, whereas the remaining cropped areas were treated according to standard farm weed control practices. To compare the two weed control systems, weed control efficacy, average crop yield, and the extra time required for scouting and treatments were measured. In both crops, the treatments suggested by GESTINF showed good efficacy, and yields proved to be no different from those obtained in the fields treated with standard farm weed control practices. In most cases, GESTINF selected treatments with a lower environmental effect. The most critical point was the time required to scout the weed population that, in low-value crops or when very cheap treatments were available, reduced the weed control economic return. In wheat, GESTINF indicated that fewer fields needed to be treated than did the conventional system. However, extra costs due to both scouting and more expensive treatments balanced the savings obtained from nontreated areas. For soybean, the treatments adopted by the farm were based on a combination of pre- and postemergence practices. In this case, GESTINF identified cheaper but still efficacious treatments, significantly reducing the total cost of weed control.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Economic evaluationherbicideon-farm researchweed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , August 2003 , pp. 618 - 627
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

Aarts, H.F.M. and Visser, C.L.M. 1985. A management information system for weed control in winter wheat. Pages 679–686 In Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, U.K.: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Berti, A. and Zanin, G. 1994. Density equivalent: a method for forecasting yield loss caused by mixed weed populations. Weed Res. 34:459–467.Google Scholar
Berti, A. and Zanin, G. 1997. GESTINF: a decision model for post-emergence weed management in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Crop Prot. 16:109–116.Google Scholar
Berti, A., Zanin, G., Baldoni, G., Grignani, C., Mazzoncini, M., Montemurro, P., Tei, F., Vazzana, C., and Viggiani, P. 1992. Frequency distribution of weed counts and applicability of a sequential sampling method to integrated weed management. Weed Res. 32:39–44.Google Scholar
Berti, A., Zanin, G., Otto, S., Trevisan, M., and Capri, E. 1995. Evaluation of the cost-risk relationship of groundwater contamination in weed control of soybean. Eur. J. Agron. 4:491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, I. D. and Dyson, C. B. 1993. An economic threshold model for spraying herbicides in cereals. Weed Res. 33:279–290.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Norquay, H. M. 1997. Seed production and seedbank dynamics in subthreshold velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) populations. Weed Sci. 45:85–90.Google Scholar
Castro-Tendero, A. J. and Garcia-Torres, L. 1996. SEMAGI—an expert system for weed control decision making in sunflowers. Crop Prot. 14:543–548.Google Scholar
Cussans, G. W. and Rolph, J. 1990. HERBMAST—a herbicide selection system for winter wheat. Pages 451–457 In Proceedings of European Weed Research Society Symposium, Integrated Weed Management in Cereals. Helsinki, Finland: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Buhler, D. D., Swinton, S. M., and King, R. P. 1993. Field evaluation of a bioeconomic weed management model for the corn belt, USA. Pages 755–760 In Proceedings of the 8th European Weed Research Society Symposium, Quantitative approaches in weed and herbicide research and their practical application. Braunschweig, Germany: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Gerowitt, B. and Heitefuss, R. 1990. Weed economic thresholds in cereals in the Federal Republic of Germany. Crop Prot. 9:323–331.Google Scholar
Gustafson, D. L. 1989. Groundwater Ubiquity Score: a simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:339–357.Google Scholar
IRIPA Quadrifoglio. 1998. Diserbare in post con l'aiuto del computer. Avviato un programma sperimentale dell’Università di Padova. Dalla Terra trevisana, 10–11.Google Scholar
Krishnan, G., Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., Bills, L. B., Dieleman, A., and Neeser, C. 2001. WeedSOFT: a state of the art weed management decision support system. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:41.Google Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39:124–129.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weed life history: identifying vulnerability. Pages 40–98 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Two approaches to weed control decision-aid software. Weed Technol. 5:445–452.Google Scholar
Murali, N. S., Secher, B.J.M., Rydahl, P., and Andreasen, F. M. 1999. Application of information technology in plant protection in Denmark: from vision to reality. Comput. Electron. Agric. 22:109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 6:220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapparini, G. 1996. Il diserbo delle colture. Bologna, Italy: Edizioni L’Informatore Agrario.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Black, J. R. 1991. SOYHERB. A computer program for soybean herbicide decision making. Agron. J. 83:921–925.Google Scholar
Rossi, E., Miotto, P., and Montanari, R. 1997. Esperienze aziendali di utilizzo di GESTINF. Pages 41–50 In Zanin, G. and Sartorato, I., eds. Strumenti informatici per il controllo delle infestanti. Dalla teoria alla pratica. CNR-CeBI.Google Scholar
Sartorato, I., Berti, A., and Zanin, G. 1996. Estimation of economic thresholds for weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Crop Prot. 15:63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattin, M., Zanin, G., and Berti, A. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:213–219.Google Scholar
STaTSoft, Inc. 2001. STATISTICA data analysis software system Version 6.Google Scholar
Staver, C. P. 2001. Knowledge, science, and practice in ecological weed management: farmer-extensionist-scientist interaction. Pages 99–138 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stigliani, L. and Resina, C. 1993. SELOMA: expert system for weed management in herbicide-intensive crops. Weed Technol. 7:550–559.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Alm, D. M. 1993. Survey of results on environmental issues and weed science research priorities within the corn belt. Weed Technol. 7:763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Andreasen, C., and Fredshavn, J. 1990. A computer program for economic thresholds. Pages 459–466 In Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium, Integrated Weed Management in Cereals. Helsinki, Finland: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agric. Syst. 44:313–335.Google Scholar
WHO. 1984. Guidelines For Drinking Water Quality. Volume 1. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., King, R. P., Schweizer, D. W., Lybecker, D. W., and Swinton, S. M. 1996. GWM: general weed management model. Agric. Syst. 50:355–376.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: decision model for post-emergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413–417.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Wiles, L. J., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Weed management decision models: pitfalls, perceptions, and possibilities of the economic threshold approach. Weed Sci. 50:411–424.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Berti, A., and Toniolo, L. 1993. Estimation of economic thresholds for weed control in winter wheat. Weed Res. 33:459–467.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Sattin, M., and Berti, A. 1995. Innovative strategies in weed control. Pages 163–183 In Vighi, M. and Funari, E., eds. Pesticide Risk in Groundwater. Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar