Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:24:43.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling the sustainability and economics of stacked herbicide-tolerant traits and early weed management strategy for waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) control – ERRATUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2020

Chun Liu ,
Paul Neve ,
Les Glasgow ,
R. Joseph Wuerffel ,
Micheal D. K. Owen  and
Shiv S. Kaundun
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Keywords

cross-resistanceherbicide resistance mitigationmultiple resistancepreemergence applicationsresidual herbicidestransgenic crops; erratum
Type
Erratum
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 195 - 196
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

In the original publication of this article (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Neve, Glasgow, Wuerffel, Owen and Kaundun2020), several errors relating to the table footnotes were present due to a processing oversight by the publisher.

Note “b” for Table 1 was mistakenly omitted. The note should read:

bSurvival at recommended doses of Y and Z depended on genotypes, and therefore these values were not used in the model.

The positioning of several note callouts within Table 3 was incorrect, and the contents of notes “j” and “k” were swapped. The correct table, with notes, appears on the subsequent page.

The publisher apologizes for these errors, and no fault is attributed to the authors.

Table 3. Cost–benefit calculation of three example weed control scenarios using products available on the U.S. soybean market.a

a Note that the calculations here are only presented as figurative examples and do not aim to promote any particular herbicide.

b Good yield without herbicide failure or bad yield (or bad year) due to resistance/weed control failure.

c Considering impacts of weed seed contamination and grain quality.

d Based on Enlist One® (Corteva Agriscience, Wilmington, DE), Enlist Duo® (Corteva Agriscience, Wilmington, DE), Liberty® 280 SL (BASF Corporation, Raleigh, NC), Prefix® (Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Greensboro, NC), and Roundup® PowerMax (Bayer Crop Science, St. Louis, MO).

e Based on N-Pak® AMS (Source AMS 34 2 × 2.5. Winfield® United, St. Paul, MN) and drift reduction agent Intact™ (2 × 2.5. Precision Labs Inc., Northbrook, IL).

f Based on Enlist™ soybeans (Corteva Agriscience, Wilmington, DE), Enlist E3™ soybeans (Corteva Agriscience, Wilmington, DE), and Roundup Ready® 2 soybeans (Bayer Crop Science, St. Louis, MO).

g Based on 2018 Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey.

h 1 ha = 2.47 acre; 1 L = 0.028 U.S. bushel.

i Equals (6,095 L × US$0.23 L−1) − (US$30 × 2 herbicide cost) − (US$5 × 2 adjuvant cost) − US$100 seed cost − (US$20 × 2 labor and machine cost).

j Equals (2,612 L × US$0.17 L−1) − (US$30 × 2 herbicide cost) − (US$5 × 2 adjuvant cost) − US$100 seed cost − (US$20 × 2 labor and machine cost).

k Equals (5 good years × US$1,192) + (15 bad years × US$234).

References

Liu, C, Neve, P, Glasgow, L, Wuerffel, RJ, Owen, MDK, Kaundun, SS (2020) Modeling the sustainability and economics of stacked herbicide-tolerant traits and early weed management strategy for waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) control. Weed Sci 68:179–185Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 3. Cost–benefit calculation of three example weed control scenarios using products available on the U.S. soybean market.a