Translator Disclaimer
1 September 2013 Assessment of Weed Management Practices and Problem Weeds in the Midsouth United States—Soybean: A Consultant's Perspective
Dilpreet S. Riar, Jason K. Norsworthy, Lawrence E. Steckel, Daniel O. Stephenson, Thomas W. Eubank, Robert C. Scott
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Soybean consultants from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee were surveyed by direct mail and by on-farm visits in fall 2011 to assess weed management practices and the prevalence of weed species in midsouth U.S. soybean. These consultants represented 15, 21, 5, and 10% of total soybean planted in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee, respectively, in 2011. Collectively, 93% of the total scouted area in these four states was planted with glyphosate-resistant (RR) soybean. The adoption of glufosinate-resistant (LL) soybean was greatest in Arkansas (12%), followed by Tennessee (4%), Mississippi (2%), and Louisiana (< 1%). Only 17% of the RR soybean was treated solely with glyphosate, compared with 35% of LL soybean treated solely with glufosinate. Across four states, average cost of herbicides in RR and LL soybean systems was US$78 and US$91 ha−1, respectively. Collectively across states, total scouted area under conventional tillage was 42%, stale seedbed was 37%, and no-tillage was 21%. Palmer amaranth and morningglories were the most problematic weeds in all four states. Additionally, barnyardgrass and horseweed were the third most problematic weeds of Arkansas and Tennessee, respectively, and Italian ryegrass was the third most problematic weed in Louisiana and Mississippi. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth infested fewer fields in Louisiana (16% of fields) than it did in the remaining three states (54% collectively). Average Palmer amaranth hand-weeding costs in the midsouth was US$59 ha−1. Three-fourths of the midsouth consultants stipulated the need for continued research and education focused on management of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-tolerant weed species.

Nomenclature: Glufosinate; glyphosate; barnyardgrass; Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.; horseweed; Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.; Italian ryegrass; Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot; morningglory; Ipomoea spp.; Palmer amaranth; Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.; soybean; Glycine max (L). Merr.

Asesores en soya de Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, y Tennessee fueron encuestados vía correo y visitas en finca en el otoño de 2011 para evaluar las prácticas de manejo de malezas y la prevalencia de especies de malezas en la producción de soya en el Sur medio de los Estados Unidos. Estos asesores representaron 15, 21, 5 y 10% del total de soya plantada en Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, y Tennessee, respectivamente en 2011. Colectivamente, 93% del total del área evaluada en estos cuatro estados fue sembrada con soya resistente a glyphsoate (RR). La adopción de soya resistente a glufosinate (LL) fue mayor en Arkansas (12%), seguida por Tennessee (4%), Mississippi (2%) y Louisiana (<1%). Solamente 17% de la soya RR fue tratada únicamente con glyphosate, al compararse con 35% de soya LL que fue tratada solamente con glufosinate. En los cuatro estados, el costo promedio de herbicidas en sistemas de soya RR y LL fue US$78 y US$91 ha−1, respectivamente. Colectivamente en los estados, el total del área evaluada que estuvo bajo labranza convencional fue 42%, siembra retrasada 37%, y cero labranza 21%. Amaranthus palmeri e Ipomoea spp. fueron las malezas más problemáticas en todos los cuatro estados. Adicionalmente, Echinochloa crus-galli y Conyza canadensis fueron las terceras malezas más problemáticas en Arkansas y Tennessee, respectivamente, y Lolium perenne fue la tercera maleza más problemática en Louisiana y Mississippi.

Dilpreet S. Riar, Jason K. Norsworthy, Lawrence E. Steckel, Daniel O. Stephenson, Thomas W. Eubank, and Robert C. Scott "Assessment of Weed Management Practices and Problem Weeds in the Midsouth United States—Soybean: A Consultant's Perspective," Weed Technology 27(3), 612-622, (1 September 2013). https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-12-00167.1
Received: 16 November 2012; Accepted: 1 February 2013; Published: 1 September 2013
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top