Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T21:37:18.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial Inference of Herbicide Bioavailability Using a Geographic Information System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
David A. Mortensen ,
William J. Waltman  and
Alex R. Martin
Martin M. Williams II
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University 24106 N. Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350-9687
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Research Coordinator, Department of Computer Science and Engineering
William J. Waltman*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: miwilliams@wsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents an approach to managing and evaluating soil survey data that can aid in soil-applied herbicide decision making. Field experiments were used to quantify the dose responses of corn, shattercane, and velvetleaf to isoxaflutole over a range of soil conditions within an agricultural field. Isoxaflutole doses eliciting crop injury (20% greenness reduction) and weed control (80% biomasss reduction) were projected for a county located in Nebraska based on associations between the plant response and the soil properties. The biologically effective dose of isoxaflutole increased with increasing organic matter and mineral surface area. Mean biologically effective doses for velvetleaf (1 to 27 g/ha) were considerably lower than that for shattercane (42 to 206 g/ha). Over 60% of the surface texture is silty clay loam for Saunders County, suggesting that 17 and 158 g/ha are the minimal doses required to suppress velvetleaf and shattercane, respectively, for a majority of the county. Conceivably, this approach could be used as an initial step to assess the relative value of field-specific applications and variable dose application technologies.

Keywords

Isoxaflutoleshattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench #3 SORBIvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.ARDC, Agriculture Research and Development CenterGIS, geographic information systemMUIR, map unit interpretation recordsOM, organic matterSSURGO, Soil Survey GeographicTIGER, topologically integrated geographic encoding and referencing

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 603 - 611
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

Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4: 279–283.Google Scholar
Cambardella, C. A., Moorman, T. B., Novak, J. M., Parkin, T. B., Karlen, D. L., Turco, R. F., and Konopka, A. E. 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 1501–1511.Google Scholar
Carter, A. D. 1992. Vulnerability assessments and their relevance in determining the risk of herbicide contamination of water resources. Asp. Appl. Biol. 29: 17–24.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Influence of weed biology and ecology on the development of reduced dose strategies for integrated weed management systems. In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press. pp. 333–362.Google Scholar
Ferguson, R. B. and Hergert, G. W. 1999. Sampling and spatial analysis techniques for quantifying map unit composition. Geophys. Monogr. 108: 79–91.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. 1993. The implications of scale on the ecology and management of weeds. In Bunce, R.G.H., Ryszkowski, L., and Paolette, M. G., eds. Landscape Ecology and Agroecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis. pp. 91–105.Google Scholar
Gonese, J. U. and Weber, J. B. 1998. Herbicide rate recommendations: soil parameter equations vs. registered rate recommendations. Weed Technol. 12: 235–242.Google Scholar
Leistra, M. and Green, R. E. 1990. Efficacy of soil-applied pesticides. In Pesticides in the Soil Environment. Soil Science Society of America Book Series No. 2. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Luscombe, B. M., Pallett, K. E., Loubiere, P., Millet, J. C., Melgarejo, J., and Vrabel, T. E. 1995. RPA 201772: a novel herbicide for broadleaf and grass weed control in maize and sugarcane. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 2: 35–42.Google Scholar
Martin, A. R., Roeth, F. W., Wilson, R. G., Wicks, G. A., Klein, R. N., Lyon, D. J., and Knezevic, S. 1999. A 1999 Guide for Herbicide Use in Nebraska. Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC. 99-130-D.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Bhowmik, P. C., and Xing, B. 1999. Sorption of isoxaflutole by five different soils varying in physical and chemical properties. Pestic. Sci. 55: 935–942.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Bhowmik, P. C., and Xing, B. 2000. Sorption and desorption of the diketonitrile metabolite of isoxaflutole in soils. Environ. Pollut. 107: 1–8.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., and Roeth, F. W. et al. 1999. WeedSOFT, Version 4.1. An Economic Threshold-Based Weed Management Program. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1271–1277.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–227.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J., Mielke, L. N., and Nettleton, W. D. 1992. Estimation of Relative Pesticide Leaching in Nebraska Soils. Research Bulletin 313-D. Lincoln, NE: Agricultural Research Division, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Stolpe, N. B., Kuzila, M. S., and Shea, P. J. 1998. Importance of soil map detail in predicting pesticide mobility in terrace soils. Soil Sci. 163: 394–402.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Sims, G. K., and Wax, L. M. 2000. Effect of moisture and temperature on degradation of isoxaflutole in soil. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 40: 339.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Tucker, M. R., and Isaac, R. A. 1987. Making herbicide rate recommendations based on soil tests. Weed Technol. 1: 41–45.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Mortensen, D. A. 2000. Crop/weed outcomes from site-specific and uniform soil-applied herbicide applications. Precision Agric. 2: 377–388.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., and Marx, D. B. 2001. Within-field soil heterogeneity effects on herbicide-mediated crop injury and weed biomass. Weed Sci. 49: 798–805.Google Scholar