Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:14:32.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Returns to Herbicide Resistance Management in the Short and Long Run: The Role of Neighbor Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael Livingston ,
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo  and
George B. Frisvold
Michael Livingston
Affiliation:
Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Washington, DC (this research was conducted while he was an economist with the USDA, Economic Research Service)
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo
Affiliation:
USDA Economic Research Service
George B. Frisvold*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: frisvold@ag.arizona.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A bioeconomic model is used to estimate how managing glyphosate resistance to horseweed affects short- and long-run profits in corn, soybean, and corn-soybean rotation systems. Model results found that resistance management reduces profits in the first year of implementation, but increases profits in the second and subsequent 18 yr. In all three systems, long run gains begin to outweigh short-run costs (and resistance management “pays for itself”) by the second year. Over a 20-yr horizon, the estimated annual average profit advantage from managing resistance exceeded $158 ha–1 ($64/acre) for corn, $137 ha–1 ($55/acre) for corn-soybean, and $55 ha–1 ($22/acre) for soybean. Seed immigration from a neighbor's field can reduce these gains, but this reduction is negligible if the neighbor also practices resistance management. If the neighbor did not manage resistance, however, the grower's estimated annual profit advantage fell to roughly $123 ha–1 ($50/acre) for corn, $60 ha–1 ($24/acre) for the corn-soybean rotation, and virtually zero for soybean. Methods applied in this study identify corn and corn-soybean rotations as cases where resistance management “pays for itself' quickly and significantly, even if the neighbor does not manage resistance. Continuous soybean presents a more challenging case that may require additional programs and incentives to encourage collective resistance management among growers. Even for continuous soybean, however, joint grower–neighbor resistance management can pay for itself within 2 yr.

Keywords

Glyphosatehorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.corn, Zea mays Lsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrBioeconomic modelscommon propertycornglyphosate resistancehorseweedresistance managementsoybean
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 64 , Issue S1: Special Issue: Human Dimensions of Herbicide Resistance , 2016 , pp. 595 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 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.)

Footnotes

Associate editor for this paper: Sarah Ward, Colorado State University.

References

Literature Cited

Alston, JM, Hyde, J, Marra, MC, Mitchell, PD (2002) An ex-ante analysis of the benefits from the adoption of corn rootworm resistant transgenic corn technology. AgBioForum 5: 71–84Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ (2006) Herbicide-resistant weeds: management tactics and practices. Weed Technol 20: 793–814Google Scholar
Bellman, R (1957) Dynamic Programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 359 pGoogle Scholar
Boerboom, C, Owen, M, eds. (2007) National Glyphosate Stewardship Forum II: A Call to Action. St. Louis, MO: North Central IPM Center, 45 pGoogle Scholar
Bonny, S (2007) Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28: 21–32Google Scholar
Brewin, DG, Malla, S (2012) The consequences of biotechnology: a broad view of the changes in the Canadian canola sector, 1969 to 2012. AgBioForum 15: 257–275Google Scholar
Brookes, G, Barfoot, P (2008) Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AgBioForum 11: 21–38Google Scholar
Burnett, K (2006) Introduction of invasive species: failure of the weakest link. Agri Res Econ Rev 35: 21–28Google Scholar
Caplat, P, Coutts, S, Buckley, YM (2012) Modeling population dynamics, landscape structure, and management decisions for controlling the spread of invasive plants. Ann NY Acad Sci 1249: 72–83Google Scholar
Carpenter, JE, Gianessi, L (1999) Herbicide tolerant soybeans: why growers are adopting Roundup Ready varieties. AgBioForum 2: 65–72Google Scholar
Carpenter, JE, Gianessi, LP (2010) Economic impacts of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Pages 297–312in Nandula, VK, ed. Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds: History, Development, and Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
Coble, H (2014) Call to action. Presentation at the Herbicide Resistance Summit II—A Call to Action, organized by the Weed Science Society of America and hosted by the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. September 10, 2014.Google Scholar
Cousens, R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann App Biol 107: 239–252Google Scholar
Culpepper, S, Owen, M, Price, A, Wilson, R (2012) Herbicide-Resistant Weeds Threaten Soil Conservation Gains: Finding a Balance for Soil and Farm Sustainability. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 16 pGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Whitaker, JR, MacRae, AW, York, AC (2008) Distribution of glyphosate-resistance Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Georgia and North Carolina during 2005 and 2006. J Cotton Sci 12: 306–310Google Scholar
Dauer, JT, Luschei, EC, Mortensen, DA (2009) Effects of landscape composition on spread of an herbicide-resistant weed. Landscape Ecol 24: 735–747Google Scholar
Davis, VM, Johnson, WG (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) emergence, survival, and fecundity in notill soybean. Weed Sci 56: 231–236Google Scholar
Deen, W, Weersink, A, Turvey, CG, Weaver, S (1993) Weed control decision rules under uncertainty. Rev Agri Econ 13: 39–30Google Scholar
Duke, SO, Powles, SB (2009) Glyphosate-resistant crops and weeds: now and in the future. AgBioForum 12: 346–357Google Scholar
Edwards, CB, Jordan, DL, Owen, MD, Dixon, PM, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Shaw, DR (2014) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Economics of herbicide resistance management practices in a 5-year field-scale study. Pest Manage Sci 70: 1924–1929Google Scholar
Ervin, D, Jussaume, R (2014) Integrating social science into managing herbicide-resistant weeds and associated environmental impacts. Weed Sci 62: 403–414Google Scholar
Fenichel, E, Richards, T, Shanafelt, D (2014) The control of invasive species on private property with neighbor-to-neighbor spillovers. Environ Res Econ 59: 231–255Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Fiendricks, C, Mishra, A (2005) Technology adoption and off-farm household income: the case of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. J Agri Appl Econ 37: 549–563Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Wechsler, S, Livingston, M, Mitchell, L (2014). Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, ERR-162. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 54 pGoogle Scholar
Foresman, C, Glasgow, L (2008) Grower perceptions and experiences with glyphosate resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 64: 388–391Google Scholar
Frisvold, GB, Hurley, TM, Mitchell, PD (2009) Adoption of best management practices to control weed resistance by corn, cotton, and soybean growers. AgBioForum 12: 370–381Google Scholar
Frisvold, GB, Reeves, JM (2014) Herbicide resistant crops and weeds: implications for herbicide use and weed management. Pages 331–354in Pimentel, D, Peshin, R, eds. Integrated Pest Management. Netherlands: SpringerGoogle Scholar
Gardner, JG, Nehring, RF, Nelson, CH (2009) Genetically modified crops and household labor savings in US crop production. AgBioForum 12: 303–312Google Scholar
Gardner, JG, Nelson, GC (2008) Herbicides, glyphosate resistance and acute mammalian toxicity: simulating an environmental effect of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the USA. Pest Manage Sci 64: 470–478Google Scholar
Gillmeister, WJ, Moffitt, LJ, Bhowmik, PC, Allen, PG (1990) Information value in weed management. Northeastern J Agri Res Econ 19: 24–27Google Scholar
Givens, WA, Shaw, DR, Johnson, WG, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Owen, MDK, Jordan, D (2009) A grower survey of herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Tech 23: 156–161Google Scholar
Gould, F (1995) Comparisons between resistance management strategies for insects and weeds. Weed Technol 9: 830–839Google Scholar
Gusta, M, Smyth, SJ, Belcher, K, Phillips, PWB, Castle, D (2011) Economic benefits of genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant canola for producers. AgBioForum 14: 1–13Google Scholar
Gustafson, DI (2008) Sustainable use of glyphosate in North American cropping systems. Pest Manag Sci 64: 409–416Google Scholar
Hall, JC, Van Eerd, LL, Miller, SD, Owen, MD, Prather, TS, Shaner, DL, Singh, M, Vaughn, K, Weller, SC (2000) Future research directions for weed science. Weed Technol 14: 647–658Google Scholar
Hanson, BD, Shrestha, A, Shaner, DL (2009) Distribution of glyphosate resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and relationship to cropping systems in the central valley of California. Weed Sci 57: 48–53Google Scholar
Hardin, G (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859): 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Heap, I (2015) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/home.aspx. Accessed March 2015Google Scholar
Hoverstad, TR, Gunsolus, JL, Johnson, GA, King, RP (2004) Riskefficiency criteria for evaluating economics of herbicide-based weed management systems in corn 1. Weed Technol 18: 687–697Google Scholar
Hurley, TM, Mitchell, PD, Frisvold, GB (2009) Effects of weed resistance concerns and resistance management practices on the value of Roundup Ready® crops. AgBioForum 12: 291–302Google Scholar
Lee, H, Chambers, RG (1986) Expenditure constraints and profit maximization in US agriculture. Am J Agri Econ 68: 857–865Google Scholar
Lence, SH (2000) Using consumption and asset return data to estimate farmers’ time preferences and risk attitudes. Am J Agri Econ 82: 934–947Google Scholar
Livingston, M, Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Unger, J, Osteen, C, Schimmelpfennig, D, Park, T, Lambert, D (2015) The economics of glyphosate resistance management in corn and soybean production. Economic Research Report #184. Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service. 45 pGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, RS, Allen, DM (2006) Expected mobility of herbicide resistance via weed seeds and pollen in a Western Australian cropping region. Crop Protect 25: 520–526Google Scholar
Llewellyn, RS, Pannell, DJ (2009) Managing the herbicide resource: An evaluation of extension on management of herbicide-resistant weeds. AgBioForum 12: 358–369Google Scholar
Marra, MC, Piggott, NE, Carlson, GA (2004) The Net Benefits, Including Convenience, of Roundup Ready® Soybeans: Results from a National Survey (NSF Center for IPM Technical Bulletin 2004–3). Raleigh, NC: Center for Integrated Pest Management, 40 pGoogle Scholar
Marsh, SP, Llewellyn, RS, Powles, SB (2006) Social costs of herbicide resistance: the case of resistance to glyphosate. Paper 25413 presented at the 50th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Manly Pacific Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
McCoy, NH, Amatya, P (2005) Games people play: human behavior and invasive weed management. Rangelands 27: 8–14Google Scholar
Miranda, MJ, Fackler, PL (2002) Applied Computational Economics and Finance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 528 pGoogle Scholar
Miranowski, JA, Carlson, GA (1986) Economic issues in public and private approaches to preserving pest susceptibility. Pages 436–448in Board on Agriculture, ed. Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and Tactics for Management. Washington, DC: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
Moffit, JL, Hall, DC, Osteen, CD (1984) Economic thresholds under uncertainty with application to corn nematode management. Southern J Agri Econ 16: 151–157Google Scholar
Moffitt, LJ (1988) Incorporating environmental considerations in pest control advice for farmers. Am J Agri Econ 70: 628–634Google Scholar
[NRC] National Research Council (2012) National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide-Resistant Weeds: Proceedings of a Symposium. Washington, DC: National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60 (sp1): 31–62Google Scholar
Orson, JH (1999) The cost to the farmer of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol 13: 607–611Google Scholar
Osteen, CD, Moffitt, LJ, Johnson, AW (1988) Risk efficient action thresholds for nematode management. J Prod Agri 1: 332–338Google Scholar
Ostrom, E, Burger, J, Field, CB, Norgaard, RB, Policansky, D (1999) Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284: 278–282Google Scholar
Pannell, DJ, Zilberman, D (2001) Economic and sociological factors affecting growers’ decision making on herbicide resistance. Pages 231–274in Powles, S, Shaner, D, eds. Herbicide Resistance and World Grains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
Piggott, NE, Marra, MC (2008) Biotechnology adoption over time in the presence of non-pecuniary characteristics that directly affect utility: a derived demand approach. AgBioForum 11: 58–70Google Scholar
Peterson, DE (1999) The impact of herbicide-resistant weeds on Kansas agriculture. Weed Technol 13: 632–635Google Scholar
Powles, SB, Preston, C, Bryan, IB, Jutsum, AR (1997) Herbicide resistance: impact and management. Adv Agron 58: 57–93Google Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66: 265–275Google Scholar
Prince, JM, Shaw, DR, Givens, WA, Newman, ME, Owen, MD, Weller, SC, Jordan, DL (2012) Benchmark study: III. Survey on changing herbicide use patterns in glyphosate-resistant cropping systems. Weed Technol 26: 536–542Google Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson IV, DO, Bond, JA (2013) Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in midsouthern United States cotton: a follow-up survey. Weed Technol 27: 778–787Google Scholar
Ross, MA, Lembi, CA (2009) Applied Weed Science Including the Ecology and Management of Invasive Plants, 3rd edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 576 pGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DR, Owen, MDK, Dixon, PM, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Wilson, RG, Jordan, DL (2011) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 1: introduction to 2006–2008. Pest Manag Sci 67: 741–746Google Scholar
Shurley, WD, Smith, AR, Culpepper, AS, Roberts, PM (2010, January) A budget analysis of glyphosate resistant palmer amaranth control and seed technology choices in Georgia cotton. Pages 4–7in Proceedings of the 2010 Beltwide Cotton Conference. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Stanley Culpepper, A (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62: 393–402Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Culpepper, S (2006) Impact and management of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the southern region. In Abstr Nat IPM Conf 46 (4).Google Scholar
Sydorovych, O, Marra, MC (2007) A genetically engineered crop's impact on pesticide use: a revealed-preference index approach. J Agri Res Econ 32: 476–491Google Scholar
Sydorovych, O, Marra, MC (2008) Valuing the changes in herbicide risks resulting from adoption of roundup ready soybeans by U.S. farmers: a revealed preference approach. J Agri App Econ 40: 777–787Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012) Economic Research Service. Commodity Costs and Returns. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx. Accessed August 2012Google Scholar
USDA (2015) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Quick Stats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed July 2015Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM (2010) Loss of glyphosate efficacy: a changing weed spectrum in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 58: 73–79Google Scholar
Weirich, JW, Shaw, DR, Owen, MD, Dixon, PM, Weller, SC, Young, BG, Jordan, DL (2011a) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 5: effects of glyphosate-based weed management programs on farm-level profitability. Pest Manage Sci 67: 781–784Google Scholar
Weirich, JW, Shaw, DR, Coble, KH, Owen, MD, Dixon, PM, Weller, SC, Jordan, DL (2011b) Benchmark study on glyphosate resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 6: timeliness of economic decision-making in implementing weed resistance management strategies. Pest Manage Sci 67: 785–789Google Scholar
Wilson, RS, Tucker, MA, Hooker, NH, Lejeune, JT, Doohan, D (2008) Perceptions and beliefs about weed management: perspectives of Ohio grain and produce farmers. Weed Technol 22: 339–350Google Scholar
Wilson, RG, Young, BJ, Matthews, JL, Weller, SC, Johnson, WG, Jordan, DL, Owen, MDK, Dixon, PM, Shaw, DR (2011) Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 4: weed management practices and effects on weed populations and soil seedbanks. Pest Manage Sci 67: 771–780Google Scholar
Wooldridge, JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1096 pGoogle Scholar