Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-n4bck Total loading time: 0.283 Render date: 2022-08-09T23:30:40.527Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Survey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wade A. Givens*
Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
David R. Shaw
Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Greg R. Kruger
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
William G. Johnson
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Stephen C. Weller
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Bryan G. Young
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Robert G. Wilson
University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Micheal D. K. Owen
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
David Jordan
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606
Corresponding author's E-mail:


A phone survey was administered to 1,195 growers in six states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina). The survey measured producers' crop history, perception of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, past and present weed pressure, tillage practices, and herbicide use as affected by the adoption of GR crops. This article describes the changes in tillage practice reported in the survey. The adoption of a GR cropping system resulted in a large increase in the percentage of growers using no-till and reduced-till systems. Tillage intensity declined more in continuous GR cotton and GR soybean (45 and 23%, respectively) than in rotations that included GR corn or non-GR crops. Tillage intensity declined more in the states of Mississippi and North Carolina than in the other states, with 33% of the growers in these states shifting to more conservative tillage practices after the adoption of a GR crop. This was primarily due to the lower amount of conservation tillage adoption in these states before GR crop availability. Adoption rates of no-till and reduced-till systems increased as farm size decreased. Overall, producers in a crop rotation that included a GR crop shifted from a relatively more tillage-intense system to reduced-till or no-till systems after implementing a GR crop into their production system.

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.)


Barnes, L. D. and Whitmore, R. W. 1990. The use of Prowl herbicide as a preemergence treatment in an irrigated reduced tillage cotton production system. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf 14:349350.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Troxler, S. C., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Smith, W. D. 2005. Weed management systems in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 19:422429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1996. The history of 2,4-D and its impact on development of the discipline of weed science in the United States. Pages 515. in Burnside, O. C., editor. Biologic and Economic Assessment of Benefits from Use of Phenoxy Herbicides in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture NAPIAP Rep. 1-PA-96.Google Scholar
Charles, G. W. 1991. A grower survey of weeds and herbicide use in the New South Wales cotton industry. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 31:387392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. A. and Magleby, R. S. 1983. Conservation tillage use. J. Soil Water Conserv 38:156157.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L., Askew, S. D., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed Technol 18:443453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center 1999. Better Soil, Better Yields. Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center 2008. Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci 4:174185.Google Scholar
Derting, C. W. 1990. Return on investment in no-tillage vs. conventional tillage cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 43:7681.Google Scholar
Dillard, H. R., Wicks, T. J., and Philp, B. 1993. A grower survey of diseases, invertebrate pests, and pesticide use on potatoes grown in South Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 33:653661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, R. S., Christensen, B. R., and Tierney, D. P. 1994. The impact of conservation tillage on pesticide runoff into surface water: a review and analysis. J. Soil Water Conserv 49:126135.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Daberkow, S., and McBride, W. D. 2001. Decomposing the size effect on the adoption of innovations: agrobiotechnology and precision agriculture. Agbioforum 4:124136.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. 2005. Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci 61:241245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:10651070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Hillger, D. E., and Johnson, W. G. 2006. Farmer perceptions of weed problems in corn and soybean rotation systems. Weed Technol 20:751755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, L. F. 1928. Evidence and observations on establishing sweet clovers in permanent bluegrass pastures. Agron. J. 20:11971205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric 5:114119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, C. 2005. Global status of commercialized transgenic crops: 2005. Ithaca, NY: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications Briefs 34.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G. and Gibson, K. D. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant weeds and resistance management strategies: an Indiana grower perspective. Weed Technol 20:768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1993. Weed control and yield are equal in conventional, reduced-, and no-till soybean (Glycine max) after 11 years. Weed Technol 7:443451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlen, D. L., Wollenhaupt, N. C., Erbach, D. C., Berry, E. C., Swan, J. B., Eash, N. S., and Jordahl, J. L. 1994. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Tillage Res 31:149167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, J. W. and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Preemergence weed control in conservation tillage cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cropping system on sandy soils. Weed Technol 3:182185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krumm, J. T. and Martin, A. P. 1999. Weed control in no-till soybeans at Lincoln, NE, in 1998. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep 55:448451.Google Scholar
Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, F. S. Jr. 1990. Reducing herbicide inputs when establishing no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 4:1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, R. S., Lindner, R. K., Pannell, D. J., and Powles, S. B. 2002. Resistance and the herbicide resource: perceptions of Western Australian grain growers. J. Crop Prot 21:10671075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, D. R., McGlamery, M. D., and Knake, E. L. 1991. A case study of herbicide use. Weed Technol 5:639646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicosky, D. C. and Allmaras, R. R. 2003. Advances in tillage research in North American cropping systems. Pages 75125. in Shrestha, A., editor. Cropping Systems: Trends and Advances. New York, NY: Haworth.Google Scholar
Sankula, S. 2006. Quantification of the impacts on U.S. agriculture of biotechnology-derived crops planted in 2005. National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy, Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. Accessed: November 12, 2007.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Givens, W. A., Farno, L. A., Gerard, P. D., Wilcut, J. W., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., Young, B. G., Wilson, R. G., and Owen, M. D. K. 2009. Using a grower survey to assess the benefits and challenges of glyphosate-resistant cropping systems for weed management in U.S. corn, cotton, and soybean. Weed Technol 23:134149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. R. and Bradford, J. M. 1999. Conservation tillage with Roundup can decrease cotton production costs. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Cordova, TN: National Cotton Council of America. 735.Google Scholar
Snyder, R. L., Plas, M. A., and Grieshop, J. I. 1996. Irrigation methods used in California: grower survey. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng 122:259262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci 21:574580.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toler, J. E., Murdock, E. C., and Keeton, A. 2002. Weed management systems for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with reduced tillage. Weed Technol 16:773780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripplett, G. B. Jr. 1985. Principles of weed control for reduced-tillage corn production. Pages 640. in Wiese, A. F., editor. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service 1975. Control of Water Pollution from Cropland, I: A Manual for Guideline Development. Washington, DC: USDA-ARS.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. and Askew, S. D. 1999. Chemical approaches to weed management. Pages 627661. in Ruberson, J. R., editor. Handbook of Pest Management. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Brecke, B. J., et al. 1999. A Beltwide evaluation of weed management systems in transgenic and nontransgenic cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:189190.Google Scholar
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Survey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Survey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Survey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *