Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T05:25:32.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing an Empirical Yield-Prediction Model Based on Wheat and Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Density, Nitrogen and Herbicide Rate, and Growing-Season Precipitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

N. C. Wagner ,
B. D. Maxwell ,
M. L. Taper  and
L. J. Rew
N. C. Wagner*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Ave SW (Mail Stop 1045), Washington, DC 20250
B. D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Studies, P.O. Box 173120, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
M. L. Taper
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 173460, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460
L. J. Rew
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Studies, P.O. Box 173120, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Nicole.C.Wagner@fas.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To develop a more complete understanding of the ecological factors that regulate crop productivity, we tested the relative predictive power of yield models driven by five predictor variables: wheat and wild oat density, nitrogen and herbicide rate, and growing-season precipitation. Existing data sets were collected and used in a meta-analysis of the ability of at least two predictor variables to explain variations in wheat yield. Yield responses were asymptotic with increasing crop and weed density; however, asymptotic trends were lacking as herbicide and fertilizer levels were increased. Based on the independent field data, the three best-fitting models (in order) from the candidate set of models were a multiple regression equation that included all five predictor variables (R2 = 0.71), a double-hyperbolic equation including three input predictor variables (R2 = 0.63), and a nonlinear model including all five predictor variables (R2 = 0.56). The double-hyperbolic, three-predictor model, which did not include herbicide and fertilizer influence on yield, performed slightly better than the five-variable nonlinear model including these predictors, illustrating the large amount of variation in wheat yield and the lack of concrete knowledge upon which farmers base their fertilizer and herbicide management decisions, especially when weed infestation causes competition for limited nitrogen and water. It was difficult to elucidate the ecological first principles in the noisy field data and to build effective models based on disjointed data sets, where none of the studies measured all five variables. To address this disparity, we conducted a five-variable full-factorial greenhouse experiment. Based on our five-variable greenhouse experiment, the best-fitting model was a new nonlinear equation including all five predictor variables and was shown to fit the greenhouse data better than four previously developed agronomic models with an R2 of 0.66. Development of this mathematical model, through model selection and parameterization with field and greenhouse data, represents the initial step in building a decision support system for site-specific and variable-rate management of herbicide, fertilizer, and crop seeding rate that considers varying levels of available water and weed infestation.

Keywords

Imazamethabenzwild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAwheat, Triticum aestivum LYield predictionempirical modelingsite-specific managementfertilizerherbicideprecipitationprecision agriculture
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 652 - 664
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 2003. A planning tool for integrating crop choices with weed management in the Northern Great Plains. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19 (1):23–29.Google Scholar
Baeumer, K and DeWit, C.T. 1968. Competitive interference of plant species in monocultures and mixed stands. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 16:103–122.Google Scholar
Barnett, V, Laundau, S, Colls, J.J., Craigon, J, Mitchell, R.A.C., and Payne, R.W. 1997. Predicting wheat yields: the search for valid and precise models. Pages 79–99. in Lake, V., Bock, G.R., Goode, J.A. eds. Precision Agriculture: Spatial and Temporal Variability of Environmental Quality (Ciba Foundation Symposium 210). Chichester, UK J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Barton, D.L., Thill, D.C., and Shafii, B. 1992. Integrated wild oat management affects spring barley yield and economics. Weed Technol. 6:129–135.Google Scholar
Bauder, J, Brown, P, Jacobsen, J, and Ferguson, H. 1987. Estimating small grains yield potential from stored rainfall probabilities. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension Service MontGuideMT8325.Google Scholar
Beck, M.W. 1997. Inference and generality in ecology: current problems and experimental solutions. Oikos. 78:265–273.Google Scholar
Beckie, H.J., Moulin, A.P., Campbell, C.A., and Brandt, S.A. 1995. Testing the effectiveness of four simulation models for estimating nitrates and water in two soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75:135–143.Google Scholar
Berti, A and Zanin, G. 1994. Density equivalent: a method for forecasting yield loss caused by mixed weed populations. Weed Res. 34:327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beverton, R.J.H. and Holt, S.J. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Caldwell, NJ Blackburn.Google Scholar
Bell, A.R. and Nalewaja, J.D. 1968. Competition of wild oat in wheat and barley. Weed Sci. 16:505–508.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R.E., Molnar, L.J., and Janzen, H.H. 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer timing and application method affects weed competition and spring wheat yield. Weed Sci. 52:614–622.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R.E., Moyer, J.R., and Harker, K.N. 2002. Integration of cultural practices for sustainable weed management in direct seeding systems. Edmonton, Canada Alberta Agricultural Research Institute Final Report. 62.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J.K.A. and Nelder, J.A. 1960. Plant competition and crop yield. Nature. 188:342.Google Scholar
Bowden, B.A. and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7:349–359.Google Scholar
Brain, P, Wilson, B.J., Wright, K.J., Seavers, G.P., and Caseley, J.C. 1999. Modeling the effect of crop and weed on herbicide efficacy in wheat. Weed Res. 39:21–35.Google Scholar
Brooks, R.J., Semenov, M.A., and Jamieson, P.D. 2001. Simplifying Sirius: sensitivity analysis and development of a meta-model for wheat yield production. Eur. J. Agron. 14:43–60.Google Scholar
Brown, P.L. and Carlson, G.R. 1990. Grain yields related to stored soil water and growing season rainfall. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Agricultural Experiment Station. 35.Google Scholar
Brown, D and Rothery, P. 1993. Models in Biology: mathematics, statistics and computing. Chichester, UK J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. 1998. Model Selection and Inference: a Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, C.A., Selles, F, Zentner, R.P., and McConkey, B.G. 1993. Available water and nitrogen effects on yield components and grain nitrogen of zero-till spring wheat. Agron. J. 85:114–120.Google Scholar
Carlson, H.L. and Hill, J.E. 1985. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34:29–33.Google Scholar
Carlson, H, Hill, J, and Baghott, K. 1982. Wild oat competition in spring wheat. Pages 13–24. in. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual California Weed Conference. Salinas, CA California Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R.J. and Peters, N.C.B. 1974. The time of the onset of competition between wild oats (Avena fatua L.) and spring cereals. Weed Res. 14:197–202.Google Scholar
Chipanshi, A.C., Ripley, E.A., and Lawford, R.G. 1997. Early prediction of spring wheat yields in Saskatchewan from current and historical weather data using CERES–wheat model. Agric. For. Meteorol. 84:223–232.Google Scholar
Christensen, S, Nordbo, E, Heisel, T, and Walter, A.M. 1998. Overview of developments in precision weed management, issues of interest and future directions being considered in Europe. Pages 3–13. in Medd, R.W., Pratley, J.E. eds. Precision Weed Management of Crops and Pastures. Adelaide, Australia CRC for Weed Management Systems.Google Scholar
Coble, H.D. and Mortensen, D.A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol. 6:191–195.Google Scholar
Cousens, R 1985a. 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
Cousens, R 1985b. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R 1986. The use of population models in the study of the economics of weed control. Pages 269–277. in. EWRS Symposium: Economic Weed Control. Doorwerth, The Netherlands European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Cousens, R, Brain, P, O'Donovan, J.T., and O'Sullivan, P.A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.Google Scholar
Cousens, R and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeJong, E and Rennie, D.A. 1967. Physical soil factors influencing the growth of wheat. Pages 67–132. in. Canada Centennial Wheat Symposium. Calgary, Canada Western Co-op Fertilizers.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J.A., Mortensen, D.A., Buhler, D.D., Cambardella, C.A., and Moorman, T.B. 2000a. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance, I: multivariate analysis. Weed Sci. 48:567–575.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J.A., Mortensen, D.A., Buhler, D.D., and Ferguson, R.B. 2000b. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance, II: hypothesis generation. Weed Sci. 48:576–587.Google Scholar
Dille, J.A. 2002. Predicting weed species occurrence based on site properties and previous year's weed presence. Precision Agric. 3:193–207.Google Scholar
Engel, R, Long, D, and Carlson, G. 2001. Nitrogen Requirement and Yield Potential of Spring Wheat as Affected by Water. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension Service Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Farazdaghi, H and Harris, P.M. 1968. Plant competition and crop yield. Nature. 217:289–290.Google Scholar
Fernandez, R and Laird, R.J. 1959. Yield and protein content of wheat in central Mexico as affected by available soil moisture and nitrogen fertilization. Agron. J. 51:33–36.Google Scholar
Firbank, L.G., Mortimer, A.M., and Putwain, P.D. 1985. Bromus sterilis in winter wheat: a test of a predictive model. Asp. Appl. Biol. 9:59–66.Google Scholar
Firbank, L.G. and Watkinson, A.R. 1990. On the effects of competition from monocultures to mixtures. Pages 165–193. in Grace, J.B., Tilman, D. eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego Academic.Google Scholar
Godwin, D, Ritchie, J.T., Singh, U, and Hunt, L. 1990. User's Guide to CERES Wheat-V2.10. Muscle Shoals, AL International Development Center.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L. and Perry, J.N. 1995. Models for the herbicidal control of the seed bank of Avena sterilis: the effects of spatial and temporal heterogeneity and of dispersal. J. Appl. Ecol. 32:578–587.Google Scholar
Grundy, A.C., Boatman, N.D., and Froud-Williams, R.J. 1996. Effects of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer application on grain yield and quality of wheat and barley. J. Agric. Sci. 126:379–385.Google Scholar
Hammer, G.L., Hansen, J.W., Phillips, J.G., Mjelde, J.W., Hill, H, Love, A, and Potgieter, A. 2001. Advance in application of climate prediction in agriculture. Agricultural Systems. 74:515–553.Google Scholar
Haun, J.R. 1974. Prediction of spring wheat yields from temperature and precipitation data. Agron. J. 66:405–409.Google Scholar
Henry, J.L. 1971. The effect of soil zone, available soil nitrogen level and nitrogen fertilization on the yield and quality of stubble seeded cereal grain. Soil Fertility Workshop. Saskatoon, Canada University of Saskatchewan. 22.Google Scholar
Henry, J.L., Boole, J.B., and McKenzie, R.C. 1986. Effect of nitrogen water interactions on yield and quality of wheat in Western Canada. in Slinkard, A.E., Fowler, D.B., eds. Wheat Production in Canada: a Review. Saskatoon, Canada University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
Henson, J.F. and Jordan, L.S. 1982. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with wheat (Triticum aestivum and T. turgidum durum) for nitrate. Weed Sci. 30:297–300.Google Scholar
Holliday, R 1960. Plant population and crop yield: part I and part II. Field Crop Abstr. 13. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Hunter, A.S., Gerard, C.J., Waddoups, H.M., Hall, W.E., Cushman, H.E., and Alban, L.A. 1958. The effect of nitrogen fertilizers on the relationships between increases in yields and protein content of pastry type wheats. Agron. J. 50:311–314.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M, Maxwell, B.D., Anderson, R.L., Evans, J.O., Lyon, D.J., Miller, S.D., Morishita, D.W., Ogg, A.G., and Seefeldt, S.S. 2000. Evaluation of models predicting winter Triticum aestivum yield as a function of Triticum aestivum and Aegilops cylindrical densities. Weed Sci. 49:48–60.Google Scholar
Jasieniuk, M, Maxwell, B.D., and Anderson, R.L. et al. 1999. Site-to-site and year-to-year variation in Triticum aestivum–Aegilops cylindrica interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:529–537.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.A., Mortensen, D.A., and Martin, A.R. 1995. A simulation of herbicide use based on weed spatial distribution. Weed Res. 35:197–205.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, P.A., Minjas, A.N., and Runeckles, V.C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationships in replacement series experiments. Journal of App. Ecol. 21:227–243.Google Scholar
Kim, D.S., Brain, P, Marshall, E.J.P., and Caseley, J.C. 2002. Modelling herbicide dose and weed density effects on crop:weed competition. Weed Res. 42:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, D.S., Marshall, E.J.P., Brain, P, and Caseley, J.C. 2006. Modelling the effects of sub-lethal doses of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer on crop–weed competition. Weed Res. 46:492–502.Google Scholar
Kropff, M.J. and van Laar, H.H. 1993. Modelling Crop–Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK CABI.Google Scholar
Lehane, J.J. and Staple, W.J. 1965. Influence of soil texture, depth of soil moisture storage and rainfall distribution on wheat yields in southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Soil Sci. 45:207–219.Google Scholar
Li, M and Yost, R.S. 2000. Management-oriented modeling: optimizing nitrogen management with artificial intelligence. Agric. Sys. 65:1–27.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J.L., Mortensen, D.A., Clay, S.A., Schmenk, R, Kells, J.J., Howatt, K, and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)–velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Martin, R.J., Cullis, B.R., and McNamara, D.W. 1987. Prediction of wheat yield loss due to competition by wild oats. J. Agric. Res. 38:487–499.Google Scholar
Moore, G.A. and Tyndale-Busoe, J.P. 1999. Estimation of the importance of spatially variable nitrogen application and soil moisture holding capacity to wheat production. Precision Agric. 1:27–338.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D.A., Johnson, G.A., and Young, L.J. 1993. Weed distribution in agricultural fields. Pages 113–124. in Robert, P.C., Rust, R.H. eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy, Crops Science Society of America, and Soils Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Mortimer, A.M. 1987. Contributions of plant population dynamics to understanding early succession. Pages 57–80. in Gray, A.J., Crawley, M.J., Edwards, P.J. eds. Colonization, Succession, and Stability. Oxford, UK Blackwell.Google Scholar
Neidig, R.E. and Snyder, R.S. 1924. The relation of moisture and available nitrogen to the yield and protein content of wheat. Soil Sci. 18:173–179.Google Scholar
Neter, J, Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. Boston McGraw-Hill.Google 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.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J.T., Blackshaw, R.E., Harker, K.N., Clayton, G.W., and Maurice, D.C. 2005. Field evaluation of regression equations to estimate crop yield losses due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:955–962.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J.T., Remy, E.A., Sullivan, P.A.O., Dew, D.A., and Sharma, A.K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.Google Scholar
Racz, G.J. 1974. Effect of nitrogen supply, water supply and temperature on the yield and protein content of cereal grains. Pages 219–228. in. 18th Manitoba Soil Science Society Meetings. Winnipeg, Canada Manitoba Soil Science Society.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J.T. and Otter, S. 1985. Description and performance of CERES–wheat: a user-oriented wheat yield model. in Willis, W.O., ed. Agricultural Research Service Wheat Yield Project. Temple, TX Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS-38.Google Scholar
Salonen, J 1992. Yield responses of spring cereals to reduced herbicide doses. Weed Res. 32:439–499.Google 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
Sexsmith, J.J. and Russell, G.C. 1963. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization on wild oat and spring wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43:64–70.Google Scholar
Shatar, T.M. and McBratney, A.B. 2000. Empirical modeling of relationships between sorghum yield and soil properties. Precision Agric. 1:249–276.Google Scholar
Shinozaki, K and Kira, T. 1956. Intraspecific competition among higher plants, VII: logistic theory of the C–D effect. J. Inst. Polytech., Osaka City University. D7:35–72.Google Scholar
Spandl, E, Durgan, B.R., and Miller, D.W. 1997. Wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 11:591–597.Google Scholar
Swanton, C.J., Weaver, S, Cowan, P, Van Acker, R, Deen, W, and Shreshta, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. Pages 9–29. in Buhler, D.D. ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binhamton, NY Haworth.Google Scholar
Streibig, J.C., Rudemo, M, and Jensen, J.E. 1993. Dose–response curves and statistical models. Pages 29–55. in Streibig, J.C., Kudsk, P. eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Thurston, J.M. 1962. The effect of competition from cereal crops on the germination and growth of Avena fatua L. in a naturally infested field. Weed Res. 2:192–207.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, H 1992. Reinterpretation and evaluation of some simple descriptive models for weed-crop interference in terms of one-sided and two-sided competition. Oikos. 65:256–264.Google Scholar
Van Genuchten, M.T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Am. J. 44:892–898.Google Scholar
VanWychen, L.R. 2002. Field-scale spatial distribution, water use, and habitat of wild oat in the semiarid Northern Great Plains. Bozeman, MT Montana State University.Google Scholar
Walker, S.R., Medd, R.W., Robinson, G.R., and C.B.R. 2002. Improved management of Avena ludoviciana and Phalaris paradoxa with more densely sown wheat and less herbicide. Weed Res. 42:257–270.Google Scholar
Warder, F.G., Lehane, J.J., Hinman, W.C., and Staple, W.J. 1963. The effect of fertilizer growth, nutrient uptake and moisture use of wheat on two soils in southwestern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Soil Sci. 43:107–116.Google Scholar
Weaver, S.E. 1991. Size-dependent economic threshold for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5:674–679.Google Scholar
Weiner, J 1982. A neighborhood model of annual-plant interference. Ecology. 63:1237–1241.Google Scholar
Willey, R.W. and Heath, S.B. 1969. The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron. 21:281–321.Google Scholar
Williams, G.D.V. 1973. Estimates of prairie provincial wheat yields based on precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:17–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.J., Cousens, R, and Cussans, G.W. 1984. Exercises in modeling population of Avena fatua to aid strategic planning for the long-term control of this weed in cereals. Pages 287–294. in. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Weed Biology, Ecology and Systematics. Doorwerth, The Netherlands ANPP-COLUMA, European Weed Research Service.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.J., Cousens, R, and Wright, K.J. 1990. The response of spring barley and winter wheat to Avena fatua population density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 116:601–609.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.J. and Peters, N.C.B. 1982. Some studies of competition between Avena fatua L. and spring barley 1, the influence of A. fatua on yield of barley. Weed Res. 22:143–148.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.J. and Wright, K.J. 1990. Predicting the growth and competitive effects of annual weeds in wheat. Weed Res. 30:201–211.Google Scholar
Wraith, J.M., Baker, J.M., and Blake, T.K. 1995. Water uptake resumption following soil drought: a comparison among four barley genotypes. J. Exp. Bot. 46:873–990.Google Scholar
Wright, A.J. 1981. The analysis of yield-density relationships in binary mixtures using inverse polynomials. J. Agric. Sci. 96:561–567.Google Scholar