Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 5: Effects of glyphosate-based weed management programs on farm-level profitability

BACKGROUND: Glyphosate‐resistant (GR) crops have changed the way growers manage weeds and implement control strategies. Since the introduction of GR crops, growers in many instances have relied on glyphosate almost exclusively to control a broad spectrum of weeds. This overreliance on glyphosate has resulted in the evolution of glyphosate resistance in some weed species. Growers and scientists are concerned about the sustainability of GR crops and glyphosate. When a grower is making decisions about weed control strategies, economic costs and benefits of the program are primary criteria for selection and implementation. Studies across six states were initiated in 2006 to compare the economics of using a weed resistance best management practice (BMP) system with a grower's standard production system. RESULTS: Resistance BMP systems recommended by university scientists were more costly but provided similar yields and economic returns. Rotation of GR crops resulted in a higher net return (maize and soybean) compared with continuous GR crop (cotton or soybean) or rotating a GR crop with a non‐GR crop (maize). CONCLUSION: Growers can implement weed resistance BMP systems with the confidence that their net returns will be equivalent in the short run, and, in the long term, resistance BMP systems will prevent or delay the evolution of GR weeds in their fields, resulting in substantial savings. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry     

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 1: Introduction to 2006-2008

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crop technology has dramatically impacted agriculture. The adoption of GR systems in canola, maize, cotton, soybean and sugar beets has been widespread in the United States. However, weed scientists are concerned that growers' current herbicide programs and weed management tactics will affect their sustainability and effectiveness. Without proper management, the potential for weed populations to express a high degree of resistance to glyphosate will adversely impact the utility of glyphosate. In 2005, weed scientists from six universities initiated a long-term research study to assess the sustainability of GR technology. This paper introduces five other articles in this series. Over 150 fields of at least 10 ha were selected to participate in a long-term field-scale study, and each field was split in half. On one-half the grower continued using the current weed management program; on the other half the grower used academic-recommended herbicide resistance best management practices. Field data were collected in 2006-2008 to determine the impact of the two weed management programs on weed populations, diversity, seedbank, crop yields and economic returns. This long-term study will provide invaluable data for determining the sustainability and profitability of diversified weed management programs designed to lower the risk of evolving weed resistance to glyphosate.     

Glyphosate-resistant soybean as a weed management tool: Opportunities and challenges

Transgenic soybean, resistant to glyphosate, represents a revolutionary breakthrough in weed control technology. Transgenic soybean is the most dominant among all transgenic crops grown commercially in the world. In 2000, glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean was planted to 25.8 million hectares globally, which amounts to 58% of the total global transgenic crop area. The United States soybean area planted with GR soybean has increased from 2% in 1996 to 68% in 2001. Glyphosate-resistant soybean as a weed management tool has provided farmers with the opportunity and flexibility to manage a broad spectrum of weeds. The use of glyphosate in GR soybean offers another alternative to manage weeds that are resistant to other herbicides. The rapid increase in GR soybean area is caused by the simplicity of using only one herbicide and a lower cost for weed control. Adoption of GR soybean has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the area treated with other herbicides. Glyphosphate-resistant soybean should not be relied on solely to the exclusion of other weed control methods, and should be used within integrated weed management systems. Over-reliance on GR soybean could lead to problems such as shifts in weed species and population, and the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds. The challenge is for soybean farmers to understand these problems, and for weed scientists to communicate with farmers that continuous use of glyphosate may diminish the opportunity of GR soybean as a weed management tool in the future.     

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 4: Weed management practices and effects on weed populations and soil seedbanks

BACKGROUND: Weed management in glyphosate‐resistant (GR) maize, cotton and soybean in the United States relies almost exclusively on glyphosate, which raises criticism for facilitating shifts in weed populations. In 2006, the benchmark study, a field‐scale investigation, was initiated in three different GR cropping systems to characterize academic recommendations for weed management and to determine the level to which these recommendations would reduce weed population shifts. RESULTS: A majority of growers used glyphosate as the only herbicide for weed management, as opposed to 98% of the academic recommendations implementing at least two herbicide active ingredients and modes of action. The additional herbicides were applied with glyphosate and as soil residual treatments. The greater herbicide diversity with academic recommendations reduced weed population densities before and after post‐emergence herbicide applications in 2006 and 2007, particularly in continuous GR crops. CONCLUSION: Diversifying herbicides reduces weed population densities and lowers the risk of weed population shifts and the associated potential for the evolution of glyphosate‐resistant weeds in continuous GR crops. Altered weed management practices (e.g. herbicides or tillage) enabled by rotating crops, whether GR or non‐GR, improves weed management and thus minimizes the effectiveness of only using chemical tactics to mitigate weed population shifts. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry     

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 6: Timeliness of economic decision-making in implementing weed resistance management strategies

BACKGROUND: The introduction of glyphosate‐resistant (GR) crops in the late 1990s made weed control in maize, cotton and soybean simple. With the rapid adoption of GR crops, many growers began to rely solely on glyphosate for weed control. This eventually led to the evolution of GR weeds. Growers are often reluctant to adopt a weed resistance best management practice (BMP) because of the added cost of additional herbicides to weed control programs which would reduce short‐term revenue. This study was designed to evaluate when a grower that is risk neutral (profit maximizing) or risk averse should adopt a weed resistance BMP. RESULTS: Whether a grower is risk neutral or risk averse, the optimal decision would be to adopt a weed resistance BMP when the expected loss in revenue is greater than 30% and the probability of resistance evolution is 0.1 or greater. However, if the probability of developing resistance increases to 0.3, then the best decision would be to adopt a weed resistance BMP when the expected loss is 10% or greater. CONCLUSION: Given the scenarios analyzed, risk‐neutral or risk‐averse growers should implement a weed resistance BMP with confidence that they have made the right decision economically and avoided the risk of lost revenue from resistance. If the grower wants to continue to see the same level of return, adoption of BMP is required. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry     

Integrated pest management and weed management in the United States and Canada

There is interest in more diverse weed management tactics because of evolved herbicide resistance in important weeds in many US and Canadian crop systems. While herbicide resistance in weeds is not new, the issue has become critical because of the adoption of simple, convenient and inexpensive crop systems based on genetically engineered glyphosate‐tolerant crop cultivars. Importantly, genetic engineering has not been a factor in rice and wheat, two globally important food crops. There are many tactics that help to mitigate herbicide resistance in weeds and should be widely adopted. Evolved herbicide resistance in key weeds has influenced a limited number of growers to include a more diverse suite of tactics to supplement existing herbicidal tactics. Most growers still emphasize herbicides, often to the exclusion of alternative tactics. Application of integrated pest management for weeds is better characterized as integrated weed management, and more typically integrated herbicide management. However, adoption of diverse weed management tactics is limited. Modifying herbicide use will not solve herbicide resistance in weeds, and the relief provided by different herbicide use practices is generally short‐lived at best. More diversity of tactics for weed management must be incorporated in crop systems. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry     

Herbicide‐resistant weed management: focus on glyphosate

This review focuses on proactive and reactive management of glyphosate‐resistant (GR) weeds. Glyphosate resistance in weeds has evolved under recurrent glyphosate usage, with little or no diversity in weed management practices. The main herbicide strategy for proactively or reactively managing GR weeds is to supplement glyphosate with herbicides of alternative modes of action and with soil‐residual activity. These herbicides can be applied in sequences or mixtures. Proactive or reactive GR weed management can be aided by crop cultivars with alternative single or stacked herbicide‐resistance traits, which will become increasingly available to growers in the future. Many growers with GR weeds continue to use glyphosate because of its economical broad‐spectrum weed control. Government farm policies, pesticide regulatory policies and industry actions should encourage growers to adopt a more proactive approach to GR weed management by providing the best information and training on management practices, information on the benefits of proactive management and voluntary incentives, as appropriate. Results from recent surveys in the United States indicate that such a change in grower attitudes may be occurring because of enhanced awareness of the benefits of proactive management and the relative cost of the reactive management of GR weeds. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry     

The benefits of herbicide-resistant crops

Since 1996, genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops, primarily glyphosate-resistant soybean, corn, cotton and canola, have helped to revolutionize weed management and have become an important tool in crop production practices. Glyphosate-resistant crops have enabled the implementation of weed management practices that have improved yield and profitability while better protecting the environment. Growers have recognized their benefits and have made glyphosate-resistant crops the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. Weed management systems with glyphosate-resistant crops have often relied on glyphosate alone, have been easy to use and have been effective, economical and more environmentally friendly than the systems they have replaced. Glyphosate has worked extremely well in controlling weeds in glyphosate-resistant crops for more than a decade, but some key weeds have evolved resistance, and using glyphosate alone has proved unsustainable. Now, growers need to renew their weed management practices and use glyphosate with other cultural, mechanical and herbicide options in integrated systems. New multiple-herbicide-resistant crops with resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides will expand the utility of existing herbicide technologies and will be an important component of future weed management systems that help to sustain the current benefits of high-efficiency and high-production agriculture. Copyright © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry     

Weed management in conservation crop production systems

Information on weed management in conservation crop production systems is needed as adoption of practices such as reduced tillage and cover crops becomes more widespread. This review summarizes recent research on weed management aspects in these systems. Changes in patterns of tillage, planting systems, and other management strategies can alter the soil environment and lead to shifts in weed populations. Weed patterns and populations are not always consistent and vary with locale, crop, and herbicide use. However, in many long-term conservation management studies, a general increase in perennial weeds and grass species has been observed. The development of low-dose herbicides, selective postemergence herbicides, and transgenic crops has greatly improved the flexibility of producers who use conservation systems where opportunities for tillage are limited. With a higher level of management inputs, producers can successfully implement conservation management practices.     

Weed suppression by cover crops: comparative on‐farm experiments under integrated and organic conservation tillage

Cover crops are increasingly being used for weed suppression and to enhance the sustainability of agro‐ecosystems. However, the suitability of cover crops for weed suppression in integrated and organic conservation tillage systems is still poorly investigated. Therefore, a 2‐year field study at eight sites was conducted to test the weed suppressive potential of six legume‐based cover crops, with the aim to reduce herbicide input or mechanical weed management interventions. In all experiments, cover crops were directly sown after cereals before next year's main crop (grain maize or sunflower). The presence of cover crops caused a 96% to 100% reduction of weed dry matter at the four sites managed under integrated production, while effects were lower at the four sited managed under organic production, ranging from 19% to 87%. Cover crops that covered soil quickly and which produced much dry matter had the best weed suppressive potential. However, their weed suppressing effect was difficult to predict, as it depended on the year of the investigation, experimental site, cover crop species, the speed of soil cover in autumn and the density of the resulting mulch layer in spring. The study demonstrated that cover crops are a useful tool to suppress weeds under integrated and organic conservation tillage practices. Our recommendation for supporting weed management in conservation tillage systems is to use locally adapted cover crops that have rapid establishment, good soil coverage and high dry matter production. However, additional weed management measures are required for reliable weed control under on‐farm conditions.     

US grower perceptions and experiences with glyphosate-resistant weeds

BACKGROUND: A survey of 400 growers of maize, soybeans and cotton was made in the United States to determine perceptions, experiences and management practices with glyphosate-resistant weeds. The survey included growers in the north (corn belt) and south (cotton belt) of the USA in spring 2006. RESULTS: Interestingly, 24 and 39% of northern and southern growers, respectively, assumed they had glyphosate weed resistance on their farm. Of the 200 southern growers interviewed, 67% had planted continuous glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops for a period of 3-5 years. According to the survey respondents, the key method for managing glyphosate-resistant weeds was to rotate to other herbicides. CONCLUSION: Growers do value GR crop technology but are adopting measures to manage resistance only as needed.     

Development of chemical weed control and integrated weed management in China

More than 200 species of weeds are infesting main crop fields in China, among which approximately 30 species are major weeds causing great crop yield losses. About 35.8 million hectares of crop fields are heavily infested by weeds and the annual reduction of crop yields is 12.3–16.5% (weighted average). Along with rural economic development, approximately 50% of the main crop fields undergo herbicide application. Chemical weed control has changed cultural practices to save weeding labor in rice, wheat, maize, soybeans and cotton. At the same time, continuous use of the same herbicides has caused weed shift problems and weed resistance to herbicides. Consequently, integrated weed management in main crops is being developed.     

Predicting longer-term changes in weed populations under GMHT crop management

The UK Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) compared the effects on biodiversity of management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops and conventional crops over the shorter term. We simulated population changes over seven 4-year rotations (28 years) for weeds in crop rotations that included cereals and spring-sown GMHT and conventional oilseed rape and beet, using FSE data and assuming the continuation of the weed management systems practised in the FSE. The weed density dependence that was modelled integrated change caused by population dynamics and farmers’ responses to changes in weed density. Predicted weed seed populations decreased under conventional management and at a greater rate under GMHT. Total seed densities were lower for GMHT cropping by a factor of 0.7–0.8. The predicted distributions of weeds had more fields with lower weed densities under GMHT cropping. Such changes could affect animal populations on farmland, depending on the scale of uptake of GMHT crop cultivars.     

Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems

Greater adoption and refinement of low-external-input (LEI) farming systems have been proposed as ways to ameliorate economic, environmental and health problems associated with conventional farming systems. Organic soil amendments and crop diversification are basic components of LEI systems. Weed scientists can improve the use of these practices for weed management by improving knowledge of four relevant ecological mechanisms. First, multispecies crop rotations, intercrops and cover crops may reduce opportunities for weed growth and regeneration through resource competition and niche disruption. Secondly, weed species appear to be more susceptible to phytotoxic effects of crop residues and other organic soil amendments than crop species, possibly because of differences in seed mass. Thirdly, delayed patterns of N availability in LEI systems may favour large-seeded crops over small-seeded weeds. Finally, additions of organic materials can change the incidence and severity of soil-borne diseases affecting weeds and crops. Our research on LEI sweetcorn and potato production systems in central and northern Maine (USA) suggests that these mechanisms can reduce weed density and growth while maintaining crop yields. Low-external-input farming systems will advance most quickly through the application of interdisciplinary research focused on these and other ecological mechanisms.     

Advancing cover cropping in temperate integrated weed management

The effects of cover crops on weeds and the underlying mechanisms of competition, physical control and allelopathy are not fully understood. Current knowledge reveals great potential for using cover crops as a preventive method in integrated weed management. Cover crops are able to suppress 70–95% of weeds and volunteer crops in the fall‐to‐spring period between two main crops. In addition, cover crop residues can reduce weed emergence during early development of the following cash crop by presenting a physical barrier and releasing allelopathic compounds into the soil solution. Therefore, cover crops can partly replace the weed suppressive function of stubble‐tillage operations and non‐selective chemical weed control in the fall‐to‐spring season. This review describes methods to quantify the competitive and allelopathic effects of cover crops. Insight obtained through such analysis is useful for mixing competitive and allelopathic cover crop species with maximal total weed suppression ability. It seems that cover crops produce and release more allelochemicals when plants are exposed to stress or physical damage. Avena strigose, for example, showed stronger weed suppression under dry conditions than during a moist autumn. These findings raise the question of whether allelopathy can be induced artificially. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry     

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 3: Grower awareness, information sources, experiences and management practices regarding glyphosate-resistant weeds

BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted with nearly 1200 growers in US states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and North Carolina) in 2005 with the objective in part of determining the awareness of the potential for development of glyphosate resistance, the experience with glyphosate‐resistant (GR) weeds and the sources of information that growers had utilized for information on glyphosate resistance. Growers were asked a series of questions to determine the level of glyphosate resistance awareness and to list the sources of information used to learn about glyphosate resistance issues. RESULTS: The majority of the growers (88%) were aware of a weed's potential to evolve resistance to herbicide, while 44% were aware of state‐specific documented cases of GR weeds, and 15% reported having had personal experience with GR weeds. Among sources of information concerning glyphosate resistance issues, farm publications, dealers/retailers and university/extension were the most frequent responses (41, 17 and 14% respectively). Based on a 1‐10 effectiveness scale, growers ranked tillage the least effective practice (5.5) and using the correct label rates of herbicides at the proper timing for the size and type of weeds present the most effective practice (8.6) with respect to how effectively the practices mitigated the evolution of GR weeds. CONCLUSION: Results from this survey can be used by researchers, extension specialists and crop advisors further to bridge the information gap between growers and themselves and better to disseminate information concerning glyphosate resistance and glyphosate resistance management practices through more targeted information and information delivery methods. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry     

Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities

The effects of stale seedbed preparations and several weed control methods on the emergence of weeds in lettuce were studied. The specific goal was to evaluate the use of a stale seedbed in combination with chemical or mechanical weed control methods in the field. Depending on location and year, stale seedbed preparations followed by weed control prior to planting reduced the amount of weeds during crop growth by 43–83%. Control of the emerged seedlings after a stale seedbed preparation was more effective with glyphosate than with a rotary harrow. Covering the rotary harrow during control to prevent light reaching the soil improved its effect on the weed density during crop growth in two of 3 years. Radiation with far red light (FR) did not reduce the number of emerging weeds in this study. Mechanical control by finger weeder, torsion weeder and hoe was applied without stale seedbed preparations. These measures reduced the weed densities by 88–99%, compared with the untreated control and were more effective than chemical weed control with carbetamide and chlorpropham. The results show that the stale seedbed technique in combination with mechanical control of emerging weeds can reduce the weed population during crop growth as effectively as chemical control. The technique may therefore help reduce the use of herbicides in lettuce crops in the future.     

Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues?

Summary Despite the serious threat which weeds offer to organic crop production, relatively little attention has so far been paid to research on weed management in organic agriculture, an issue that is often approached from a reductionist perspective. This paper aims to outline why and how this problem should instead be tackled from a system perspective. Compared with conventional agriculture, in organic agriculture the effects of cultural practices (e.g. fertilization and direct weed control) on crop:weed interactions usually manifest themselves more slowly. It follows that weed management should be tackled in an extended time domain and needs deep integration with the other cultural practices, aiming to optimize the whole cropping system rather than weed control per se . In this respect, cover crop management is an important issue because of its implications for soil, nutrient, pest and weed management. It is stressed that direct (physical) weed control can only be successful where preventive and cultural weed management is applied to reduce weed emergence (e.g. through appropriate choice of crop sequence, tillage, smother/cover crops) and improve crop competitive ability (e.g. through appropriate choice of crop genotype, sowing/planting pattern and fertilization strategy). Two examples of system-oriented weed management systems designed for organic agriculture are illustrated as well as future perspectives and problems.     

麻类作物田杂草种类与防除技术

杂草常伴随麻类作物滋生,与其争光争肥争水,严重影响其生长、降低产量和品质。因此,有效防除麻田杂草尤为必要。文章概述了我国麻类作物生产现状,主要麻类作物田杂草危害、杂草种类及防除技术。     

Use of perennial cover crops to suppress weeds in Nicaraguan coffee orchards

Both uncontrolled weed growth and vegetation‐free orchard floors have been shown to affect coffee (Coflea arabica L.) negatively, but using cover crops as a solution has yielded conflicting results in different studies. In this study we tested the establishment success of three cover crop species under different management intensities and planting densities, as well as their long term weed‐controlling abilities and effects on weed community composition. Monthly manual weedings during the first 12 weeks after planting resulted in more rapid and extensive cover crop development compared with less intensive management. Transplanted Commelina diffusa Burm. f. grew most rapidly and controlled weeds by limiting light availability, but disappeared during the dry season and failed to establish at all on one of the farms. Arachis pintoi established and persisted for over 2 years, providing excellent weed control by outcompeting weeds for water and/or nutrient resources. Desmodium ovalifolium Wall required the longest time to establish and controlled weeds by an undetermined competitive mechanism. The sowing method of Desmodium led to intense intraspecific competition which probably decreased its effectiveness. Both Arachis and Desmodium led to lower relative abundances of grassy weeds and more perennial forbs, but total weed biomass was so low that these differences have no practical implications.