Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:04:58.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic evaluation of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Allen F. Wiese,
Brent W. Bean,
Clay D. Salisbury,
Monty G. Schoenhals and
Steve Amosson
Brent W. Bean
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, Amarillo, Texas 79106
Clay D. Salisbury
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, Amarillo, Texas 79106
Monty G. Schoenhals
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, Amarillo, Texas 79106
Steve Amosson
Affiliation:
Texas A&M University, Amarillo, Texas 79106
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research compared seven field bindweed control treatments to a check in a 3-yr winter wheat-sorghum-fallow rotation. Treatments included 3 wk intervals of sweep tillage combined with one or two annual applications of 2,4-D (tillage and 2,4-D). Two other treatments were the same as tillage and 2,4-D, except dicamba or a mixture of picloram and 2,4-D were applied once in October after wheat harvest. A fourth treatment was identical to tillage and 2,4-D, except imazapyr was sprayed immediately after harvest of wheat. Also, three no-tillage systems using glyphosate and 2,4-D at monthly intervals were supplemented with either dicamba, picloram and 2,4-D, or imazapyr the same as in treatments involving tillage and 2,4-D. The check was sweep tilled every 6 wk. All treatments controlled field bindweed in one rotation of two fallow periods and two crops. After control was accomplished, wheat and sorghum yields were about twice the check. Using 1995 costs and returns, profit for an owner-operator for the two fallow periods and two crops was $123 ha−1 for tillage and 2,4-D, compared to $19 ha−1 for the check. Tillage and 2,4-D supplemented with picloram or imazapyr were almost as profitable as tillage and 2,4-D. Because of high herbicide cost and low yields, no-tillage treatments lost money. Profits with a 33:67 owner-tenant rental agreement were $105 and $21 ha−1, respectively, for owner and tenant using tillage and 2,4-D. With no field bindweed control practice, the tenant lost $33 ha−1 and the owner made $51 ha−1.

Keywords

dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycineimazapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidpicloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acidfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARsorghum Sorghum bicolor L. Moench ‘Jacques 377W,’ winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘TAM 200’Economic returnsweep tillageCONAR

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997, pp. 288 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Brown, E. O. and Porter, H. 1942. The viability and germination of seeds of Convolvulus arvensis L. and other perennial weeds. Ames, IA: Iowa Research Bull. 294: 473–504.Google Scholar
Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F. and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18: 590–596.Google Scholar
Federal Register. 1987. Highly erodible land and wetland conservation: Final rule and notice of finding no significant impact. Fed. Reg. 52: 35193–35208.Google Scholar
Findley, D. S. and Waldrop, J. H. 1992. In Texas Custom Rates Statistics. Austin, TX: U.S. Department of Agriculture, pp. 9, 14, 55.Google Scholar
Gooding, J. R., Jordan, L. S., and Isom, W. H. 1967. Low rates of Tordon for field bindweed control. Down Earth 22: 6–7.Google Scholar
Hamner, C. L. and Tukey, H. B. 1944. The herbicidal action of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid and 2,4-5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid on bindweed. Science 100: 154–155.Google Scholar
Heering, D. C. and Peeper, T. F. 1988. Control of field bindweed with imazapyr in winter wheat. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41: 93.Google Scholar
Jones, O. R. and Johnson, G. L. 1993. In Cropping and Tillage Systems for Dryland Grain Production. Bushland, TX: Conservation and Production Research Laboratory Research Rep. 93–10, p. 9.Google Scholar
MacDonald, R. T., Hall, J. C., O'Toole, J. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with fluroxypyr. Weed Technol. 7: 966–971.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. M. 1950. The effect of 2,4-D on field bindweed. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 7: 30–31.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. M. 1961. Control of Field Bindweed by Cultural and Chemical Methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bull. 1249. 30 p.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. M. 1978. Field bindweed: the weed and the problem. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33: 140–141.Google Scholar
Phillips, W. M. and Timmons, F. L. 1954. Bindweed: How to Control It. Manhattan, KS: Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 366. 24 pp.Google Scholar
Russ, O. G. and Anderson, L. W. 1960. Field bindweed control by combinations of cropping, cultivation, and 2,4-D. Weeds 8: 397–401.Google Scholar
Schoenhals, M. G., Wiese, A. F., and Wood, M. L. 1990. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with imazapyr. Weed Technol. 4: 771–775.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E., Swink, J. F., and Hiekes, P. E. 1978. Field bindweed control in corn and sorghum with dicamba and 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 26: 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. 1978. Field bindweed control in the Central Great Plains: A review. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 33: 150–152.Google Scholar
Swan, D. G. 1982. Long-term field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with two cropping systems. Weed Sci. 30: 476–480.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F., Gibson, J., and Lavake, D. 1967. Controlling large patches of field bindweed infestations with repeated applications of Tordon. Down Earth 23: 2, 37–39.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Lavake, D. 1986. Control of field bindweed with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 34: 77–80.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1955. Bindweed Control in the Panhandle of Texas. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 802. 8 p.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1959. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D and competitive crops. Agron. J. 51: 672–675.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1962. Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10: 58–61.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F., Salisbury, C. D., Bean, B. W., Schoenhals, M. G., and Amosson, S. 1996. Economic evaluation of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control in a winter wheat-fallow rotation. Weed Sci. 44: 622–628.Google Scholar