scholarly journals Using Abrasive Grit for Weed Management in Field Crops

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Carlson ◽  
Frank Forcella ◽  
Sam Wortman ◽  
Sharon A. Clay
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Crops

Impact of weed management practices on soil biological activity in corn and soybean field crops in Québec (Canada)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Émile Samson-Brais ◽  
Marc Lucotte ◽  
Matthieu Moingt ◽  
Gilles Tremblay ◽  
Serge Paquet
Keyword(s):  
Biological Activity ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Soil Functions ◽  
Soybean Field ◽  
Soil Biological Activity ◽  
Field Crops ◽  
Fda Hydrolysis ◽  
Sampling Times

Repeated applications and combination of glyphosate-containing herbicides (GCH) with other herbicides are two weed management practices (WMP) used to compensate for GCH decreasing efficiency impacts in field crops. These practices may have serious impacts on soil functions because GCH affect soil biota and soil biological activity (SBA). Two field experiments, one with corn and one with soybean crops, were conducted during one growing season. SBA indicators, soil respiration (SR) and fluorescein diacetate (FDA) hydrolysis, were measured at two sampling times following six WMP. These WMP included one or two GCH applications (GCH alone or combined with other herbicides), applications of other herbicides only and mechanical weeding. WMP did not affect FDA neither for corn or soybean at either sampling times. In contrast, WMP affected SR in corn fields at both sampling times and SR in soybean field at the first sampling time. Repeating GCH applications and combining different herbicides led to lower SR, suggesting that these practices decreased SBA, whilst one single GCH application presented higher SR, suggesting that this practice stimulated SBA. Our study demonstrates that using GCH in combination with other herbicides or in multiple applications affects SBA in field conditions. Affecting soil functions and carbon cycle do bear serious weed management implications, and the choice of WMP should be taken into consideration to minimize their impacts on SBA for field crops sustainability.

scholarly journals Farming without Glyphosate?

Plants ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh J. Beckie ◽  
Ken C. Flower ◽  
Michael B. Ashworth
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Field Crops ◽  
Food Research ◽  
Social License ◽  
The Social ◽  
Model Predictions ◽  
Contingency Plans ◽  
Residual Herbicide

Recent statements from scientific organisations and court decisions have resulted in widespread public interest and concern over the safety of glyphosate, the most popular and effective herbicide used worldwide. Consequently, glyphosate-based products are under intense scrutiny from governments at all levels. Some jurisdictions have already banned or restricted its use, which will adversely impact international trade in bulk grain commmodities if glyphosate residues are detected. The possibility of farming without glyphosate is becoming an important issue facing the agri-food research and development sector. Contingency plans need to be formulated if that scenario becomes a reality. In this review, we briefly summarize international events that have led to this possible situation, describe current glyphosate usage in major agronomic field crops worldwide, outline possible alternatives to glyphosate in two agroregions and perform bioeconomic model scenarios of southern Australian broadacre cropping systems without the herbicide. Model predictions suggest that we can farm profitably without glyphosate by consistently utilizing key non-herbicidal weed management practices combined with robust pre-emergence soil residual herbicide treatments. However, maintaining low weed seed banks will be challenging. If the social license to use glyphosate is revoked, what other pesticides will soon follow?

Response of Triallate-Resistant Wild Oat (Avena fatua) to Alternative Herbicides

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Blackshaw ◽  
John T. O'Donovan ◽  
M. Paul Sharma ◽  
K. Neil Harker ◽  
Denise Maurice
Keyword(s):  
Dose Response ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Avena Fatua ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Wild Oat ◽  
Wild Oats ◽  
Field Crops

Wild oat populations resistant to triallate have been identified in Alberta. Dose response experiments were conducted in the greenhouse to determine if triallate-resistant wild oat was controlled by other selective wild oat herbicides. Triallate-resistant wild oat populations were effectively controlled by atrazine, ethalfluralin, fenoxaprop-P, flamprop, imazamethabenz, and tralkoxydim. EPTC and cycloate, which are chemically related to triallate, differed in their efficacy on triallate-resistant wild oats. EPTC at the 0.25x field use rate was more efficacious on triallate-resistant than triallate-susceptible wild oat. In contrast, cycloate at the 0.25 to 0.5x field use rate was less efficacious on triallate-resistant than susceptible wild oats. At higher rates, both EPTC and cycloate killed triallate-resistant wild oat populations. Growers have several herbicide choices to selectively control triallate-resistant wild oat in prairie field crops but should plan to rotate herbicides among different chemical families and adopt integrated weed management practices to reduce the risk of these wild oat populations developing resistance to other wild oat herbicides.

Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: A review

2005 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 457-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orla M. Nazarko ◽  
Rene C. Van Acker ◽  
Martin H. Entz
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Pesticide Use ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Field Crops ◽  
Low Input Agriculture ◽  
Herbicide Use

There are many economic and health reasons for reducing pesticide use in Canada. Herbicide use on field crops is by far the most common pesticide use in Canada. This paper is a review of four topics related to herbicide use reduction on field crops in Canada: (1) broad strategies and (2) specific tactics for herbicide use reduction; (3) factors affecting adoption; and 4) research approaches for improving the implementation of herbicide use reduction. Numerous tactics exist to use herbicides more efficiently and herbicides can sometimes be replaced by non-chemical weed control methods. Many of these tactics and methods have been investigated and demonstrated for use on field crops in Canada. However, herbicide use reduction is fundamentally dependent upon preventative strategies designed to create robust cropping systems that maintain low weed densities. Diverse crop rotation forms the basis of preventative strategies as it inherently varies cropping system conditions to avoid weed adaptation. There is evidence that residual weed densities resulting from herbicide use reduction are manageable within competitive cropping systems. A great deal of research has been done on herbicide use reduction on field crops in Canada, and most projects report definite possibilities for herbicide use reduction in field crop production in Canada. Synthesizing and extending this information and customizing it for use on individual farms remain challenges. Collaboration between researchers and farmers can help to build successful strategies for herbicide use reduction which reflect the context of modern farming, the will of farmers and the culture of technology adoption among farmers. Key words: Pesticide use reduction, low-input agriculture, integrated pest management, integrated weed management

Non-chemical Weed Management for Field Crops

2019 ◽  
pp. 317-348
Author(s):  
Omer Farooq ◽  
Khuram Mubeen ◽  
Hafiz Haider Ali ◽  
Shakeel Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Crops

scholarly journals Integrated Weed Management in Herbaceous Field Crops

Agronomy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelio Scavo ◽  
Giovanni Mauromicale
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Biotic Factor ◽  
Agronomic Practices ◽  
Field Crops ◽  
Weed Mapping ◽  
Soil Seedbank ◽  
The Government

Current awareness about the environmental impact of intensive agriculture, mainly pesticides and herbicides, has driven the research community and the government institutions to program and develop new eco-friendly agronomic practices for pest control. In this scenario, integrated pest management and integrated weed management (IWM) have become mandatory. Weeds are commonly recognized as the most important biotic factor affecting crop production, especially in organic farming and low-input agriculture. In herbaceous field crops, comprising a wide diversity of plant species playing a significant economic importance, a compendium of the specific IWM systems is missing, that, on the contrary, have been developed for single species. The main goal of this review is to fill such gap by discussing the general principles and basic aspects of IWM to develop the most appropriate strategy for herbaceous field crops. In particular, a 4-step approach is proposed: (i) prevention, based on the management of the soil seedbank and the improvement of the crop competitiveness against weeds, (ii) weed mapping, aiming at knowing the biological and ecological characteristics of weeds present in the field, (iii) the decision-making process on the basis of the critical period of weed control and weed thresholds and iv) direct control (mechanical, physical, biological and chemical). Moreover, the last paragraph discusses and suggests possible integrations of allelopathic mechanisms in IWM systems.

Weed Management in Small Grains Harvested for Grain

EDIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Ferrell ◽  
Gregory MacDonald ◽  
Pratap Devkota
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Chemical Control ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Good Management ◽  
Small Grains ◽  
Crop Competition

Successful weed control in small grains involves using good management practices in all phases of production. In Florida, winter weeds compete with small grains for moisture, nutrients, and light, with the greatest amount of competition occurring during the first six to eight weeks after planting. Weeds also cause harvest problems the following spring when the small grain is mature. This 4-page publication discusses crop competition, knowing your weeds, and chemical control. Written by J. A. Ferrell, G. E. MacDonald, and P. Devkota, and published by the UF/IFAS Agronomy Department, revised May 2020.

Weed Management in Peanuts

EDIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pratap Devkota
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Application Rate ◽  
Good Management ◽  
Peanut Production

Successful weed control in peanuts involves use of good management practices in all phases of peanut production. This 11-page document lists herbicide products registered for use in Florida peanut production, their mode of actions group, application rate per acre and per season, and reentry interval. It also discusses the performance of these herbicides on several weeds under Florida conditions. Written by J. A. Ferrell, G. E. MacDonald, and P. Devkota, and published by the UF/IFAS Agronomy Department, revised May 2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document