Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:43:44.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of a bioeconomic model for weed management in soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas D. Buhler ,
Robert P. King ,
Scott M. Swinton ,
Jeffery L. Gunsolus  and
Frank Forcella
Robert P. King
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Scott M. Swinton
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Jeffery L. Gunsolus
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, USDA, Morris, MN 56267
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A bioeconomic model was tested as a decision aid for weed control in soybean at Rosemount, MN, from 1991 to 1994. The model makes recommendations for preplant incorporated and preemergence control tactics based on the weed seed content of the soil and postemergence decisions based on weed seedling densities. Weed control, soybean yield, herbicide use, and economic return with model-generated treatments were compared to standard herbicide and mechanical control systems. Effects of these treatments on weed populations and corn yield the following year were also determined. In most cases, the model-generated treatments controlled weeds as well as a standard herbicide treatment. Averaged over the 3 yr, the quantity of herbicide active ingredient applied was decreased by 47% with the seedbank model and 93% with the seedling model compared with a standard soil-applied herbicide treatment. However, the frequency of herbicide application was not reduced. Soybean yields reflected differences in weed control and crop injury. Net economic return to weed control was increased 50% of the time using model-recommended treatments compared with a standard herbicide treatment. Weed control treatments the previous year affected weed density in the following corn crop but had little effect on weed control or corn yield. The bioeconomic model was responsive to differing weed populations, maintained weed control and soybean yield and often increased economic returns under the weed species and densities in this research.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3751’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Glenwood’Expert systemsintegrated weed managementweed controlweed population dynamics
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 158 - 165
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

Barrentine, W. L., Wooten, O. B., and Williford, J. R. 1979. Effect of incorporation methods and time of application on the performance of trifluralin plus metribuzin. Weed Sci. 27: 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Maxwell, B. D. 1993. Seed separation and enumeration from soil using K2CO3-centrifugation and image analysis. Weed Sci. 41: 298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Multi-year validation of a decision aid for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 44: 650–661.Google Scholar
Hardman, L. L. and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Soybean growth and development & management information for replant decisions. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Extension Service AG-FO5701-C. 12 p.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior year's weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 611–614.Google Scholar
King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34: 972–979.Google Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39: 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., Peterson, P., and Hoeffer, F. 1990. WEEDIR: Weed control directory. Version 3.1. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Extension Service AG-CS-2163.Google Scholar
Monks, D. C., Bridges, D. C., Woodruff, J. W., Murphy, T. R., and Berry, D. J. 1995. Expert system evaluation and implementation for soybean (Glycine max) weed management. Weed Technol. 9: 535–540.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 382–389.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Black, J. R. 1991. SOYHERB—A computer program for soybean herbicide management. Agron. J. 83: 921–925.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1968. The changing population of viable weed seed in arable soil. Weed Res. 8: 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32: 76–83.Google Scholar
Sprague, R. H. Jr. and Watson, H. J. 1983. Bit by bit: toward decision support systems. House, W. C., ed. Decision Support Systems: A Data-based, Model-oriented, User-developed Discipline. New York: Petrocelli, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994a. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agric. Syst. 44: 313–335.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994b. The value of weed population information in a dynamic setting: the case of weed control. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75: 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkerson, G. A., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: Decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83: 413–417.Google Scholar