scholarly journals Ten years of pulling: Ecosystem recovery after long‐term weed management in Garry oak savanna

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Shackelford ◽  
Sean M. Murray ◽  
Joseph R. Bennett ◽  
Patrick L. Lilley ◽  
Brian M. Starzomski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Oak Savanna ◽  
Ecosystem Recovery

scholarly journals Effect of Barley Sowing Density on the Integrated Weed Management of Lolium rigidum (Annual Ryegrass) in Mediterranean Dryland: A Modeling Approach

Agronomy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 1565
Author(s):  
María Belén D’Amico ◽  
Guillermo R. Chantre ◽  
Guillermo L. Calandrini ◽  
José L. González-Andújar
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Life Cycles ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Seed Removal ◽  
Weed Infestation ◽  
High Control ◽  
Weed Dynamics ◽  
The Impact

Population models are particularly helpful for understanding long-term changes in the weed dynamics associated with integrated weed management (IWM) strategies. IWM practices for controlling L. rigidum are of high importance, mainly due to its widespread resistance that precludes chemical control as a single management method. The objective of this contribution is to simulate different IWM scenarios with special emphasis on the impact of different levels of barley sowing densities on L. rigidum control. To this effect, a weed–crop population model for both L. rigidum and barley life cycles was developed. Our results point out: (i) the necessity of achieving high control efficiencies (>99%), (ii) that the increase of twice the standard sowing density of barley resulted in a reduction of 23.7% of the weed density, (iii) non-herbicide-based individual methods, such as delayed sowing and weed seed removal at harvest, proved to be inefficient for reducing drastically weed population, (iv) the implementation of at least three control tactics (seed removal, delay sowing and herbicides) is required for weed infestation eradication independently of the sowing rate, and (v) the effect of an increase in the sowing density is diluted as a more demanding weed control is reached. Future research should aim to disentangle the effect of different weed resistance levels on L. rigidum population dynamics and the required efficiencies for more sustainable IWM programs.

An online decision support tool to evaluate ecological weed management strategies

Weed Science ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-473
Author(s):  
Douglas Bessette ◽  
Robyn Wilson ◽  
Christian Beaudrie ◽  
Clayton Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Soil Quality ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
The United States ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Organic Farmers ◽  
Ecological Weed Management ◽  
On Farm

AbstractWeeds remain the most commonly cited concern of organic farmers. Without the benefit of synthetic herbicides, organic farmers must rely on a host of ecological weed management (EWM) practices to control weeds. Despite EWM’s ability to improve soil quality, the perceived rate of integrated EWM strategy adoption remains low. This low adoption is likely a result of the complexity in designing and evaluating EWM strategies, the tendency for outreach to focus on the risks of EWM strategies rather than their benefits, and a lack of quantitative measures linking the performance of EWM strategies to farmers’ on-farm objectives and practices. Here we report on the development and deployment of an easy-to-use online decision support tool (DST) that aids organic farmers in identifying their on-farm objectives, characterizing the performance of their practices, and evaluating EWM strategies recommended by an expert advisory panel. Informed by the principles of structured decision making, the DST uses multiple choice tasks to help farmers evaluate the short- and long-term trade-offs of EWM strategies, while also focusing their attention on their most important objectives. We then invited organic farmers across the United States, in particular those whose email addresses were registered on the USDA’s Organic Research Integrity Database, to engage the DST online. Results show considerable movement in participants’ (n = 45) preferences from practices focused on reducing weeding costs and labor in the short term to EWM strategies focused on improving soil quality in the long term. Indeed, nearly half of those farmers (48%) who initially ranked a strategy composed of their current practices highest ultimately preferred a better-performing EWM strategy focused on eliminating the weed seedbank over 5 yr.

Weeds and yields of spring cereals as influenced by stubble-cultivation and reduced doses of herbicides in five long-term trials

2000 ◽  
Vol 134 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. BOSTRÖM ◽  
M. HANSSON ◽  
H. FOGELFORS
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Herbicide Application ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Full Dose ◽  
Spring Cereals ◽  
One Year

The influence of herbicides at reduced rates and repeated stubble-cultivation on weeds and crop yields was estimated in five field trials with spring-sown cereals situated in the south of Sweden during the autumn of 1989 until the spring of 1997. Stubble-cultivation was accomplished during 1989–1996, while herbicides were applied at 0, 1/8, 1/4 or 1/2 of full dose during 1990–1996.In the spring of 1997, i.e. after 7 years without herbicide application, seedling densities 3 weeks after weed emergence were 68–340/m2 at three sites and 535–610/m2 at two sites when averaged over tillage treatments.Averaged over herbicide doses, stubble-cultivation reduced the plant density of annual broad- leaved weeds by 6–32% at three sites and increased the density by 25% at one site. At the remaining site, the density was not significantly influenced. Stubble-cultivation reduced the populations of two perennial and seven annual weed species, while one species was stimulated and nine species showed null, or inconsistent, responses. In the spring of 1997, i.e. one year after the last herbicide application, the densities of weed seedlings in 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2-doses were 34, 46 and 56% lower, respectively, than in the untreated controls.Stubble-cultivation increased crop yields at four sites by 200 kg/ha as a mean over herbicide doses. At these four sites, averaged over 1993–1995, herbicides increased yields in plots that were not stubble-cultivated by 7, 8 and 10% in the 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2 of a full dose, respectively, relative to the untreated control. In 1996, herbicides increased yields at only two sites.It is concluded that a fruitful way for weed management with a low input of agrochemicals is to combine the use of herbicides at reduced rates with repeated stubble-cultivation.

Prediction of weed density: the increase of error with prediction interval, and the use of long‐term prediction for weed management

1999 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wallinga ◽  
J. Grasman ◽  
R. M. W. Groeneveld ◽  
M. J. Kropff ◽  
L. A. P. Lotz
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Term Prediction ◽  
Long Term Prediction

The role of management in yield improvement of the wheat crop—a review with special emphasis on Western Australia

2005 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 1137 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. K. Anderson ◽  
M. A. Hamza ◽  
D. L. Sharma ◽  
M. F. D'Antuono ◽  
F. C. Hoyle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Western Australia ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Grain Quality ◽  
Crop Residues ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Rate Of Change ◽  
Wheat Crop ◽  
Positive Interactions

Modern bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) has been well adapted for survival and production in water-limited environments since it was first domesticated in the Mediterranean basin at least 8000 years ago. Adaptation to various environments has been assisted through selection and cross-breeding for traits that contribute to high and stable yield since that time. Improvements in crop management aimed at improving yield and grain quality probably developed more slowly but the rate of change has accelerated in recent decades. Many studies have shown that the contribution to increased yield from improved management has been about double that from breeding. Both processes have proceeded in parallel, although possibly at different rates in some periods, and positive interactions between breeding and management have been responsible for greater improvements than by either process alone. In southern Australia, management of the wheat crop has focused on improvement of yield and grain quality over the last century. Adaptation has come to be equated with profitability and, recently, with long-term economic and biological viability of the production system. Early emphases on water conservation through the use of bare fallow, crop nutrition through the use of fertilisers, crop rotation with legumes, and mechanisation, have been replaced by, or supplemented with, extensive use of herbicides for weed management, reduced tillage, earlier sowing, retention of crop residues, and the use of ‘break’ crops, largely for management of root diseases. Yields from rainfed wheat crops in Western Australia have doubled since the late 1980s and water-use efficiency has also doubled. The percentage of the crop in Western Australia that qualifies for premium payments for quality has increased 3–4 fold since 1990. Both these trends have been underpinned by the gradual elimination or management of the factors that have been identified as limiting grain yield, grain quality, or long-term viability of the cropping system.

scholarly journals Economic Barriers to Herbicide-Resistance Management

Weed Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (SP1) ◽  
pp. 585-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrance M. Hurley ◽  
George Frisvold
Keyword(s):  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
Multifaceted Approach ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Biological Perspective ◽  
Economic Barriers ◽  
Near Term

Herbicide-resistant weeds are the result of evolutionary processes that make it easy to think about the problem from a purely biological perspective. Yet, the act of weed management, guided by human production of food and fiber, drives this biological process. Thus, the problem is socioeconomic as well as biological. The purpose of this article is to explain how well-known socioeconomic phenomena create barriers to herbicide-resistance management and highlight important considerations for knocking down these barriers. The key message is that the multidimensional problem requires a multifaceted approach that recognizes differences among farmers; engages the regulatory, academic, extension, seed and chemical suppliers, and farmer communities; and aligns the diverse interests of the members of these communities with a common goal that benefits all—more sustainable weed management. It also requires an adaptive approach that transitions from moreuniform and costly standards and incentives, which can be effective in the near-term but are unsustainable, to more-targeted and less-costly approaches that are sustainable in the long term.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document