Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-t6r6x Total loading time: 0.486 Render date: 2022-07-05T20:25:29.462Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

50th Anniversary—Invited Article: Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Douglas D. Buhler*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; buhler@msu.edu

Abstract

Despite several decades of modern weed control practices, weeds continue to be a constant threat to agricultural productivity. Herbicide-resistant weeds and weed population shifts continue to generate new challenges for agriculture. Because of weed community complexity, integrated approaches to weed management may help reduce economic effects and improve weed control practices. Integrated weed management emphasizes the combination of management techniques and scientific knowledge in a manner that considers the causes of weed problems rather than reacts to existing weed populations. The goal of weed management is the integration of the best options and tools to make cropping systems unfavorable for weeds and to minimize the effect of weeds that survive. No single practice should be considered as more than a portion of an integrated weed management strategy. The best approach may be to integrate cropping system design and weed control strategies into a comprehensive system that is environmentally and economically viable. Management decisions must also be made on a site- and time-specific basis. Considering weeds in a broader ecological and management context may lead to the use of a wider range of cultural and management practices to regulate weed communities and prevent the buildup of adapted species. This will help producers manage herbicides and other inputs in a manner that preserves their effectiveness and move weed scientists toward the development of more diverse and integrated approaches to weed management.

Type
50th Anniversary–Invited Article
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

Alkamper, J. 1976. Influence of weed infestation on effect of fertilizer dressings. Pflanzenschutz-Nachr. Bayer. 29:191235.Google Scholar
Alston, D. G., Bradley, J. R. Jr., Schmitt, D. P., and Coble, H. D. 1991. Response of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations to canopy development in soybean as influenced by Hederodera glycines (Nemotoda: Heteroderidae) and annual weed population densities. J. Econ. Entomol. 84:267276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, J. and Campbell, C. L. 1977. Effect of herbicides on plant diseases. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 15:361385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 1991. Timing of nitrogen application affects downy brome (Bromus tectorum) growth in winter wheat. Weed Technol. 5:582585.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol. 12:531536.Google Scholar
Andreasen, C., Streibig, J. C., and Haas, H. 1991. Soil properties affecting the distribution of 37 weed species in Danish fields. Weed Res. 31:181187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballare, C. L. and Casal, J. J. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crops Res. 67:149160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, T. C. and Francis, C. R. 1986. Agronomy of multiple cropping systems. Pages 161182 In Francis, C. A., ed. Multiple Cropping Systems. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228235.Google Scholar
Benbrook, C. M., Hoppin, P., and Liebman, M. 1996. New tools to measure reliance and use of herbicides and the adoption of integrated weed management. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36:9495.Google Scholar
Black, B. D., Padgett, G. B., Russin, J. S., Griffin, J. L., Snow, J. P., and Berggren, G. T. Jr. 1996. Potential weed hosts for Diaporthe phaseolorum var. caulivora, causal agent for soybean stem canker. Plant Dis. 80:763765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994a. Rotation affects downy brome (Bromus tectorum) in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 8:728732.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1994b. Differential competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars against downy brome. Agron. J. 86:649654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottrell, D. R. 1979. Integrated pest management: definition, features, and scope. Pages 1926 In Integrated Pest Management. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google ScholarPubMed
Brust, G. E. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 3:1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:12471258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1996. Development of alternative weed management strategies. J. Prod. Agric. 9:501505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Effect of date of preplant tillage and planting on weed populations and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:373379.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84:973978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control in soybean (Glycine max) with reduced rates of bentazon and cultivation. Weed Sci. 41:447453.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Kohler, K. A., and Foster, M. S. 1998. Spring-seeded smother plants for weed control in corn and soybean. J. Soil Water Conserv. 53:272275.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7:169180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Johnson, G. A., and Sparrow, D. H. 1997. The nature and consequences of weed spatial distribution. Weed Sci. 45:364373.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopoduim album) in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:258268.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1996. Spatial relationships between seedbank and seedling populations of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and annual grasses. Weed Sci. 44:298308.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Webster, T. M., Herms, C. P., and Regnier, E. E. 1999. Development of weed IPM: levels of integration for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:239267.Google Scholar
Cate, J. R. and Hinkle, M. K. 1994. Integrated Pest Management: The Path of a Paradigm. Washington, DC: National Audubon Society. 40 p.Google Scholar
Challaiah, R., Ramsel, E., Wicks, G. A., Burnside, O. C., and Johnson, V. A. 1983. Evaluation of the weed competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 38:8591.Google Scholar
Collins, F. L. and Johnson, S. J. 1985. Reproductive response of caged adult velvetbean caterpillar and soybean looper to the presence of weeds. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 14:139149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, A. E., Erich, M. S., Liebman, M., and Lambert, D. H. 1998. Disease incidence and growth of wild mustard seedlings in red clover and compost amended soil. Agron. Abstr. 90:279.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2:1320.Google Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Gray, M. E. 1995. Survey of integrated pest management practices in central Illinois. J. Prod. Agric. 8:483486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, M.R.T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors influencing management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot. 43:13191327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dann, E. K., Diers, B. W., and Hammerschmidt, R. 1999. Suppression of sclerotinia stem rot of soybean by lactofen herbicide treatment. Phytopathology 89:598602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, B. E. 1972. Nonchemical weed control. Pages 330338 In Pest Control: Strategies for the Future. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
DeLuca, T. H. and DeLuca, D. K. 1997. Composting for feedlot manure management and soil quality. J. Prod. Agric. 10:235241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., Cambardella, C. A., and Moorman, T. B. 2000. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. I. Multivariate analysis. Weed Sci. 48:567575.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491497.Google Scholar
Ervio, R., Hyvarinen, S., Ervio, L., and Salonen, J. 1994. Soil properties affecting weed distribution in spring cereal and vegetable fields. Agric. Sci. Finland 3:497504.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. G., Doran, J. W., Sahs, W. W., and Lesoing, G. W. 1988. Soil microbial populations and activities under conventional and organic management. J. Environ. Qual. 17:585590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., Corson, S., Porter, G. A., and Ullrich, S. D. 1998. Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Sci. 46:238248.Google Scholar
Garrity, D. P., Movillon, M., and Moody, K. 1992. Differential weed suppression ability in upland rice cultivars. Agron. J. 84:586591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, M. R. 1981. Preemergence herbicides and cultivation for soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:165168.Google Scholar
Gill, G. S. and Holmes, J. E. 1997. Efficacy of cultural control methods for combating herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum . Pestic. Sci. 51:352358.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. 1995. Challenges and prospects of integrated pest management. Pages 119 In Reuventi, R., ed. Novel Approaches to Integrated Pest Management. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The limiting resources in the environment. Pages 305346 In The Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. 1996. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics following a single year's seed rain. Weed Technol. 10:581586.Google Scholar
Harwood, R. R. and Price, E. C. 1976. Multiple cropping in tropical Asia. Pages 1140 In Papendick, R. I., Sanchez, P. A., and Triplett, G. B., eds. Multiple Cropping. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google ScholarPubMed
Hauser, E. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Production of peanuts as affected by weed competition and row spacing. Auburn: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 538. 35 p.Google Scholar
Hausler, A. and Nordmeyer, H. 1995. Impact of soil properties on weed distribution. Pages 186189 In Olesen, S. E., ed. Proceedings of the Seminar on Site Specific Farming, SP-report 26. Amsterdam: Danish Institute of Plant and Soil Science.Google Scholar
Jagtap, S. S. and Adeleye, O. 1999. Land use efficiency of maize and soyabean intercropping and monetary returns. Trop. Sci. 39:5055.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. 35:197205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N., Mortensen, D. A., Prenzlow, D. M., and Curtis Cox, K. 1995. Simulation analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbanks. Am. J. Bot. 82:390398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karssen, C. M. and Hillhorst, H.W.M. 1992. Effect of chemical environment on seed germination. Pages 327348 In Fenner, M., ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
Keen, N. T., Holliday, M. J., and Yoshikawa, M. 1982. Effects of glyphosate on glyceollin production and the expression of resistance to Phytophthora megasperma f. sp. glycinea in soybean (Glycine max). Phytopathology 72:14671470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. and Kremer, R. J. 1996. Microorganisms in weed control strategies. J. Prod. Agric. 9:480485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. and Beckie, H. J. 1998. Contribution of nitrogen fertilizer placement to weed management in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 12:507514.Google Scholar
Koscelny, J. A., Peeper, T. F., Solie, J. B., and Solomon, S. G. 1990. Effect of wheat (Triticum aestivum) row spacing, seeding rate, and cultivar on yield loss from cheat (Bromus secalinus). Weed Technol. 4:487492.Google Scholar
Lanning, S. P., Talbert, L. E., Matrin, J. M., Blake, T. K., and Bruckner, P. L. 1997. Genotype of wheat and barley affects light penetration and wild oat growth. Agron. J. 89:100103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A., Simard, R. R., and Lapierre, C. 1994. Response of spring barley and weed communities to lime, phosphorus and tillage. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:421428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighty, C. E. 1938. Crop rotation. Pages 406430 In Soils and Men, Yearbook of Agriculture 1938. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Levene, B. C., Owen, M.D.K., and Tylka, G. L. 1998. Response of soybean cyst nematodes and soybeans (Glycine max) to herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:264270.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res. 40:2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291343 In Jackson, L. E., ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Ohno, T. 1998. Crop rotation and legume residue effects on weed emergence and growth: applications for weed management. Pages 181221 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:6268.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1975. Cocklebur control in soybeans as affected by cultivars, seeding rates, and methods of weed control. Weed Sci. 23:386390.Google Scholar
Medlin, C. R., Shaw, D. R., Gerard, P. D., and LaMastrus, F. E. 2000. Using remote sensing to detect weed infestations in Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:393398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Teasdale, J. R. 1993. Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed Res. 33:487499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulla, D. J. 1993. Mapping and managing spatial patterns in soil fertility and crop yield. Pages 1526 In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. Pages 3158 In Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. and Kogan, M. 2000. Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems. Weed Sci. 48:94158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T. 1996. Weed economic thresholds: useful agronomic tool or pipe dream? Phytoprotection 77:1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okigo, B. N. and Greenland, D. J. 1976. Intercropping systems in tropical Africa. Pages 63101 In Papendick, R. I., Sanchez, P. A., and Triplett, G. B., eds. Multiple Cropping. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy Special Publication 27.Google Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M., Stoffella, P. J., Bewick, T. A., Cantliffe, D. J., and Obreza, T. A. 1999. Effect of age of composted MSW and biosolids on weed seed germination. Compost Sci. Utilization 7:5157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pester, T. A., Burnside, O. C., and Orf, J. H. 1999. Increasing crop competitiveness to weeds through crop breeding. J. Crop Prod. 2:3158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Physiological Aspects of Competition In Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: J Wiley.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, K., Rasmussen, J., and Petersen, J. 1996. Effects of fertilizer placement on weed in weed harrowed spring barley. Acta Agric. Scand. 46:192196.Google Scholar
Riggs, R. D. and Hamblen, M. L. 1966. Additional weed hosts of Heterodera glycines . Plant Dis. Rep. 50:1516.Google Scholar
Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E. 1994. Preface. Pages 28 In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Curl, E. A., and Funderburk, H. H. Jr. 1966. Effect of four herbicides on growth of Rhizoctonia solani . Phytopathology 56:13321333.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40:645653.Google Scholar
Shelton, M. D. and Edwards, C. R. 1983. Effects of weeds on the diversity and abundance of insects in soybeans. Environ. Entomol. 12:296298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. F. and van den Bosch, R. 1967. Integrated control. Pages 295340 In Kilgore, W. W. and Doutt, R. L., eds. Pest Control: Biological, Physical, and Selected Chemical Methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541545.Google Scholar
Stern, V. M., Smith, R. F., van den Bosch, R., and Hagen, K. S. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafzinger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155181.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmission. Weed Technol. 9:113118.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. Pages 247270 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed competition with snap beans. Weed Sci. 31:8185.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant Soil 135:287292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, E. A., Tilman, D., Crawley, M. J., and Johnston, A. E. 1999. Biological weed control via nutrient competition: potassium limitation of dandelions. Ecol. Applic. 9:103111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdrighi, M. M., Pera, A., Agnolucci, M., Frasinetti, S., Lundardi, D., and Vallini, G. 1996. Effects of compost-derived humic acids on vegetable biomass production and microbial growth within a plant (Cichorium intybus)-soil system: a comparative study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 58:133144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vengris, K., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47:213216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. H. 1995. Preventative weed management. Pages 3550 In Smith, A. E., ed. Handbook of Weed Management Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., Gold, H. J., and Coble, H. D. 1992. Modeling weed distribution for improved postemergence control decisions. Weed Sci. 40:546553.Google Scholar
Woebbecke, D. M., Meyer, G. E., Von Bargen, K., and Mortensen, D. A. 1993. Plant species identification, size, and enumeration using machine vision techniques on near-binary images. Pages 208219 In DeShazer, J. A., ed. Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Optics in Agriculture and Forestry. Volume 1836. Boston: Society of Photooptical Instrumentation Engineers.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S. 1993. Contribution of bean morphological characteristics to weed suppression. Agron. J. 85:840843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in maize. Weed Res. 28:347352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Weed Science—A Plea for Thought. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research Service. 34 p.Google Scholar
123
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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.

50th Anniversary—Invited Article: Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management
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.

50th Anniversary—Invited Article: Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management
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.

50th Anniversary—Invited Article: Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management
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? *