Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-l48q4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-22T19:39:54.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Economics of integrated weed management in herbicide-resistant canola

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Elwin G. Smith
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada
G. W. Clayton
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C and E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
K. N. Harker
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C and E Trail, Lacombe, AB T4L 1W1, Canada
R. E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, Canada

Abstract

Integrated weed management (IWM) decision strategies in herbicide-resistant canola-production systems were assessed for net returns and relative risk. Data from two field experiments conducted during 1998 to 2000 at two locations in Alberta, Canada, were evaluated. A herbicide-based experiment included combinations of herbicide system (glufosinate-, glyphosate-, and imazethapyr-resistant canola varieties), herbicide rate (50 and 100% of recommended dose), and time of weed removal (two-, four-, and six-leaf stages of canola). A seed-based experiment included canola variety (hybrid and open-pollinated), seeding rate (100, 150, and 200 seeds m−2), and time of weed removal (two-, four-, and six-leaf stages of canola). For the herbicide-based experiment, strategies with glyphosate were profitable at Lacombe, but both imazethapyr and glyphosate strategies were profitable at Lethbridge. Weed control at the four-leaf stage was at least as profitable as the two-leaf stage at both sites. For the seed-based experiment, the hybrid was more profitable than the open-pollinated cultivar, seed rates of 100 and 150 seeds m−2 were more profitable than 200 seeds m−2, and weed control at the two- and four-leaf stages was more profitable than at the six-leaf stage. When risk of returns and statistical significance was considered, several strategies were included in the risk-efficient set for risk-averse and risk-neutral attitudes at each location. However, the glyphosate-resistant cultivar, the 50% herbicide rate, and weed control at four-leaf stage were more frequent in the risk-efficient IWM strategy set. The open-pollinated cultivar, 200 seeds m−2 rate, and weed control at the six-leaf stage were less frequent in the set. The risk-efficient sets of IWM strategies were consistent across a range of canola prices.

Type
Weed Management
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

[AAFRD] Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 2004a. Alberta Major Crops-Unit Value, 1952–53 to 2002–03. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sdd5291/$FILE/table85.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2004.Google Scholar
[AAFRD] Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 2004b. Crop Protection 2004. Agdex 606-1. Edmonton, Alberta: Crop Diversification Division. Pp. 247248.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. and Dillon, J. L. 1992. Risk analysis in dryland farming systems. Rome: FAO Farming System Management Series no. 2. 55 p.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci 50:273280.Google 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
Clayton, G. W., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Baig, M. N., and Kidnie, M. J. 2002. Glyphosate timing and tillage system effects on glyphosate-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol 16:124130.Google Scholar
Environment Canada. 2005. Climate Data Online. http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/prods_servs/index_e.html. Accessed July 25, 2005.Google Scholar
Hardaker, J. B., Huirne, R. B. M., and Anderson, J. R. 1997. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. New York: CAB International. Pp. 154155.Google Scholar
Hardaker, J. B., Richardson, J. W., Lien, G., and Schumann, K. D. 2004. Stochastic efficiency analysis with risk aversion bounds: a simplified approach. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ 48:253270.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., Kirkland, K. J., Derksen, D. A., and Wall, D. 2000. Herbicide-tolerant canola: weed control and yield comparisons in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:647654.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. 2003. Seeding rate, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Can. J. Plant Sci 83:433440.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., O'Donovan, J. T., and Blackshaw, R. E. 2001. Canola variety and seeding rate effects on weed management and yield. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 41:25.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., O'Donovan, J. T., Blackshaw, R. E., and Stevenson, F. C. 2004. Herbicide timing and rate effects on weed management in three herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus) systems. Weed Technol 18:10061012.Google Scholar
McCarl, B. A. 1988. Preference among risky prospects under constant risk aversion. South. J. Agric. Econ 20:2533.Google Scholar
Mjelde, J. W. and Cochran, M. J. 1988. Obtaining lower and upper bounds on the value of seasonal climate forecasts as a function of risk preferences. West. J. Agric. Econ 13:283293.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological bases for cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric 9:468474.Google Scholar
Morrison, M. J., McVetty, P. B. E., and Scarth, R. 1990. Effect of altering plant density on growth characteristics of summer rape in southern Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci 70:127137.Google Scholar
Popp, M. P., Oliver, L. R., Dillon, C. R., Keisling, T. C., and Manning, P. M. 2000. Evaluation of seed bed preparation, planting method, and herbicide alternatives for dry soybean production. Agron. J 92:11491155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J. W. 1964. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32:122136.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Rajcan, I., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. An integrated weed management strategy for glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:517522.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657663.Google Scholar
Tetio-Kagho, F. and Gardner, F. P. 1988. Response of maize to plant population density. I. Canopy development, light relationships, and vegetative growth. Agron. J 80:930935.Google Scholar
Van Deynze, A. E., McVetty, P. B. E., Scarth, R., and Rimmer, S. R. 1992. Effect of varying seeding rates on hybrid and conventional summer rape performance in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci 72:635641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zand, E. and Beckie, H. J. 2002. Competitive ability of hybrid and open-pollinated canola (Brassica napus) with wild oat (Avena fatua). Can. J. Plant Sci 82:473480.Google Scholar