Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T00:51:12.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the Potential for Site-Specific Herbicide Application in Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gail G. Wilkerson ,
Andrew J. Price ,
Andrew C. Bennett ,
David W. Krueger ,
Gary T. Roberson  and
Bridget L. Robinson
Gail G. Wilkerson*
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Andrew J. Price
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Andrew C. Bennett
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David W. Krueger
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Gary T. Roberson
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Bridget L. Robinson
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: gail_wilkerson@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted on two North Carolina research stations in 1999, 2000, and 2001; on-farm in Lenoir, Wayne, and Wilson counties, NC, in 2002; and on-farm in Port Royal, VA, in 2000, 2001, and 2002 to evaluate possible gains from site-specific herbicide applications at these locations. Fields were scouted for weed populations using custom software on a handheld computer linked to a Global Positioning System. Scouts generated field-specific sampling grids and recorded weed density information for each grid cell. The decision aid HADSS™ (Herbicide Application Decision Support System) was used to estimate expected net return and yield loss remaining after treatment in each sample grid of every field under differing assumptions of weed size and soil moisture conditions, assuming the field was planted with either conventional or glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean. The optimal whole-field treatment (that treatment with the highest expected net return summed across all grid cells within a field) resulted in average theoretical net returns of $79/ha (U.S. dollars) and $139/ha for conventional and GR soybean, respectively. When the most economical treatment for each grid cell was used in site-specific weed management, theoretical net returns increased by $13/ha (conventional) and $4.50/ha (GR), and expected yield loss after treatment was reduced by 10.5 and 4%, respectively, compared with the whole-field optimal treatment. When the most effective treatment for each grid cell was used in site-specific weed management, theoretical net returns decreased by $18/ha (conventional) and $4/ha (GR), and expected yield loss after treatment was reduced by 27 and 19%, respectively, compared with the whole-field optimal treatment. Site-specific herbicide applications could have reduced the volume of herbicides sprayed by as much as 70% in some situations but increased herbicide amounts in others. On average, the whole-field treatment was optimal in terms of net return for only 35% (conventional) and 57% (GR) of grid cells.

Keywords

Glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max L., ‘Natto.’Computer decision aidseconomic thresholdintegrated pest managementvariable rate herbicide applicationCEFS, Center for Environmental Farming SystemsGPS, Global Positioning SystemGR, glyphosate resistantHADSS, Herbicide Application Decision Support SystemTNR, theoretical net return over herbicide investmentYL, yield loss remaining after treatment.

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1101 - 1110
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson-Cook, C. M., Alley, M. M., Roygard, J. K. F., Khosla, R., Noble, R. B., and Doolittle, J. A. 2002. Differentiating soil types using electromagnetic conductivity and crop yield maps. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1562–1570.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. C., Price, A. J., Sturgill, M. C., Buol, G. S., and Wilkerson, G. G. 2003. HADSS™, Pocket HERB™, and WebHADSS™: decision aids for field crops. Weed Technol. 17:412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canner, S. R., Wiles, L. J., and McMaster, G. S. 2002. Weed reproduction model parameters may be estimated from crop yield loss data. Weed Sci. 50:763–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. D. and Woolcock, J. L. 1997. Spatial dynamics of weeds: an overview. in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection conference— Weeds. Farnham, UK: British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 613–618.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Ferguson, R. B. 2000. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. II. Hypothesis generation. Weed Sci. 48:576–587.Google Scholar
Gerhards, R., Sokefeld, M., Schulze-Lohne, K., Mortensen, D. A., and Kuhbauch, W. 1997. Site specific weed control in winter wheat. J. Agron. Crop Sci 178:219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Saavedra, M. 2003. Spatial distribution of annual grass weed populations in winter cereals. Crop Prot 22:629–633.Google Scholar
Goudy, H. J., Bennett, K. A., Brown, R. B., and Tardif, F. J. 2001. Evaluation of site-specific weed management using a direct-injection sprayer. Weed Sci. 49:359–366.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 35:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. P., Holshouser, D. L., Alley, M. M., Roygard, J. K. F., and Anderson-Cook, C. M. 2003. Double-crop soybean leaf area and yield responses to mid-Atlantic soils and cropping systems. Agron. J 95:436–445.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Wilkerson, G. G., and Krueger, D. W. 2003. Evaluation of scouting methods in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) using theoretical net returns from HADSS™. Weed Technol. 17:358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurado-Exposito, M., Lopez-Granodos, F., Garcia-Ferrer, A., and Atenciano, S. 2003. Multi-species weed spatial variability and site-specific management maps in cultivated sunflower. Weed Sci. 51:319–328.Google Scholar
Krueger, D. W., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 2000. An economic analysis of binomial sampling for weed scouting. Weed Sci. 48:53–60.Google Scholar
Luschei, E. C., Van Wychen, L. R., Maxwell, B. D., Bussan, A. J., Buschena, D., and Goodman, D. 2001. Implementing and conducting on-farm weed research with the use of GPS. Weed Sci. 49:536–542.Google Scholar
Medlin, C. R. and Shaw, D. R. 2000. Economic comparison of broadcast and site-specific herbicide applications in nontransgenic and glyphosate resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:653–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Dieleman, J. A., and Johnson, G. A. 1997. Weed spatial variation and weed management. in Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewert, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press. Pp. 293–309.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Cussans, G. W., Mugglestone, M. A., and Miller, P. C. H. 1996. A technique for mapping the spatial distribution of Elymus repens, with estimates of the potential reduction in herbicide usage from patch spraying. Weed Res 36:283–292.Google Scholar
Sturgill, M. C., Wilkerson, G. G., Robinson, B. L., Price, A. J., Bennett, A. C., and Buol, G. S. 2003. HADSS 2003 User's Manual. Raleigh, NC: Research Bulletin 202, Crop Science Deptartment, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003a. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2002 Field Crops Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA, United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003b. Farm Production Expenditures 2002 Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J 83:413–417.Google Scholar