Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:19:42.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David R. Shaw ,
Wade A. Givens ,
Luke A. Farno ,
Patrick D. Gerard ,
David Jordan ,
William G. Johnson ,
Stephen C. Weller ,
Bryan G. Young ,
Robert G. Wilson  and
Michael D. K. Owen
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Wade A. Givens
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Luke A. Farno
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Patrick D. Gerard
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Box 9652, Mississippi State, MS 39762
David Jordan
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
William G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Scotts Bluff, NE 69361
Michael D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dshaw@gri.msstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over 175 growers in each of six states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina) were surveyed by telephone to assess their perceptions of the benefits of utilizing the glyphosate-resistant (GR) crop trait in corn, cotton, and soybean. The survey was also used to determine the weed management challenges growers were facing after using this trait for a minimum of 4 yr. This survey allowed the development of baseline information on how weed management and crop production practices have changed since the introduction of the trait. It provided useful information on common weed management issues that should be addressed through applied research and extension efforts. The survey also allowed an assessment of the perceived levels of concern among growers about glyphosate resistance in weeds and whether they believed they had experienced glyphosate resistance on their farms. Across the six states surveyed, producers reported 38, 97, and 96% of their corn, cotton, and soybean hectarage planted in a GR cultivar. The most widely adopted GR cropping system was a GR soybean/non-GR crop rotation system; second most common was a GR soybean/GR corn crop rotation system. The non-GR crop component varied widely, with the most common crops being non-GR corn or rice. A large range in farm size for the respondents was observed, with North Carolina having the smallest farms in all three crops. A large majority of corn and soybean growers reported using some type of crop rotation system, whereas very few cotton growers rotated out of cotton. Overall, rotations were much more common in Midwestern states than in Southern states. This is important information as weed scientists assist growers in developing and using best management practices to minimize the development of glyphosate resistance.

Keywords

Glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L.cotton, Gossipium hirsutum L.rice, Oryza sativa L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCrop diversitycrop rotationglyphosate-resistant cropsresistance managementsurvey
Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 134 - 149
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

Aldrich, R. J. and Kremer, R. J. 1997. Principles in Weed Management. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 35–63.Google Scholar
Ball, D. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci 40:654–659.Google Scholar
Bárberi, P. and Lo Cascio, B. 2001. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on weed seedbank size and composition. Weed Res 41:325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest. Manag. Sci 56:299–308.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, L., Morrison, I. N., and Kelner, D. 1997. Field and producer survey of ACCase resistant wild oat in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci 77:709–714.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci 42:205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:174–185.Google Scholar
Dill, G. M. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status, and future. Pest. Manag. Sci 61:219–224.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest. Manag. Sci 61:211–218.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1990. Modeling the effectiveness of herbicide rotations and mixtures as strategies to delay or preclude resistance. Weed Technol 4:186–198.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2008. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: August 20, 2008.Google Scholar
Hutcheon, J. A., Stride, C. D., and Wright, K. J. 1998. Manipulation of weed seedbanks in reduced tillage systems for sustainable weed control. Aspects Appl. Bio 51:249–254.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Forcella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Sci 47:175–183.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol 5:460–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, J. M. 1994. Management of herbicide resistant weed populations. Pages 317–335. in Powles, S. B. and Holtum, J. A. M., editors. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2003. Use of soybean surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol 17:195–201.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci 61:301–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, K. N. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soybean as a weed management tool: opportunities and challenges. Weed Bio. Manag 1:193–202.Google Scholar
Sankula, S. 2006. Quantification of the Impacts on U.S. Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2005. http://www.ncfap.org/whatwedo/pdf/2005biotechimpacts-finalversion.pdf. Accessed: September 23, 2007.Google Scholar
Scott, B. A. and VanGessel, M. J. 2006. Delaware soybean grower survey of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Technol 21:270–274.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag. Sci 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. 1995. Herbicide-resistant crops and implications for herbicide-resistant weeds. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 48:38.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Rainero, H. P. 1990. Weed control in soybean under different cropping and tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric 3:453–460.Google Scholar
Stephenson, G. R., Dykstra, M. D., McLaren, R. D., and Hamill, A. S. 1990. Agronomic practices influencing triazine-resistant weed distribution in Ontario. Weed Technol 4:199–207.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Vyn, T. J., Chandler, K., and Shrestha, A. 1998. Weed management strategies for no-till soybeans (Glycine max) grown on clay soils. Weed Technol 12:660–669.Google Scholar
Tingle, C. H. and Chandler, J. M. 2004. The effect of herbicides and crop rotation on weed control in glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 18:940–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuesca, D., Puricelli, E., and Papa, J. C. 2001. A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems. Weed Res 41:369–382.Google Scholar
Unger, P. W., Miller, S. D., and Jones, O. R. 1999. Weed seeds in long-term dryland tillage and cropping system plots. Weed Res 39:213–223.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS] 2008a. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/. Accessed: August 16, 2008.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS] 2008b. Farm Acres by Type and Region. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/. Accessed: August 16, 2008.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service [USDA ERS] 2008c. State Fact Aheets. http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/. Accessed: August 16, 2008.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci 49:703–705.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol 15:771–790.Google Scholar
Wrucke, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distribution as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci 33:853–856.Google Scholar