Jeffrey L. Gunsolus

A Bioeconomic Analysis of Site-Specific Management for Weed Control

have been implicated as potential sources of ground and surface water pollution and attendant health hazards (Nielsen and Lee; Hoar et al.; United States Environmental Protection Agency). These adverse effects have led to imposition of regulatory actions ranging from herbicide restrictions to use quotas. In the United States, atrazine, the most commonly detected herbicide in groundwater, is currently a restricted-use product. In the Netherlands and Denmark, quotas have been imposed to regulate the amount of pesticides that can be used for crop production. The Netherlands aims for 30 percent reduction in herbicides (active ingredient) by 1995 when compared to 1984-1988 use levels. The target reduction by the year 2000 is 45 percent (Wossink and Renkema). Denmarks goal is to reduce current herbicide use levels by 50 percent in 1997 compared to 1987 use levels (Thompson, Stafford, and Miller). In spite of these concerns, the deleterious effects of uncontrolled weed populations are too significant to be ignored (e.g., Auld, Menz, and Tisdell). In the United States alone, the annual value of crop yield losses would run into several billions of dollars if weeds were left unchecked (Chandler, Hamill, and Thomas). These considerations suggest that information that results in the use of profitable and environmentally friendly weed-control strategies is valuable. Several computer-based bioeconomic models that serve as useful decision support tools for crop production management are now available (Mortensen et al.; Swinton and King 1994a, 1994b; Wilkerson, Modena, and Coble; Thornton et al.). These models employ concepts of economic thresholds to recommend control

Weed diversity and soybean yield with glyphosate management along a north–south transect in the United States

Abstract There are many concerns about the effects of repeated use of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, including two that are seemingly contradictory. These are (1) weed escapes and (2) loss of weed diversity. Weeds that escape glyphosate treatment represent species that likely will become troublesome and difficult to control in the future, and identifying these future problems may allow more effective management. In contrast, complete weed control directly reduces the weed component of agroecosystem biodiversity and may lower other components indirectly (e.g., weed-dependent granivores). During 2001 and 2002 effects of glyphosate and conventional weed control treatments on weed community composition and GR soybean yields were studied. Field studies were conducted along a north–south transect of sites spanning a distance of 1600 km from Minnesota to Louisiana. Low-intensity use (single application yr−1) of glyphosate allowed more escapes and maintained higher weed diversity than high-intensity use (two applications yr−1) of glyphosate, and it was equivalent to or even higher than diversity in non-GR systems. Although the same weeds escaped from low- and high-intensity glyphosate treatments, frequency of escapes was higher with less intensive use. These results suggest that limited use of glyphosate would not have profound effects on weed diversity. In addition, crop yield did not differ between GR and non-GR treatments at high latitudes, but below 40° N latitude, with a longer cropping season, yields with low-intensity glyphosate use decreased by about 2% per degree latitude because of competition from escaped weeds. Nomenclature: Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.

Knowledge networks: an avenue to ecological management of invasive weeds

Abstract Ecological management of invasive weeds will require substantial increases in the application of ecological knowledge and its integration with other forms of knowledge. To enable these increases, we call for purposeful development of knowledge networks in which new knowledge about a complex situation is created by the interaction of different forms of knowledge. We believe that invasive-plant management must be based on a fine-tuning of managed ecosystems, in which operations (e.g., farm activities) are comprehensively adjusted to confront invasives with a wide array of control measures. Land managers must have the primary role in this tuning process because of their holistic knowledge of the ecosystems they manage. Additionally, such ecological management of invasives will require support from new or improved practices in many relevant sectors, e.g., involving extension workers, farm advisors, and researchers of many sorts. Knowledge networks facilitate the creation, application, and integration of knowledge that will be needed to support ecological invasive-plant management. Worldwide, knowledge networks are under very active development as promising solutions to ecological-management challenges. To develop, networks require proactive organization and facilitation. We have developed an experimental knowledge network to facilitate ecological management of field-crop weeds on the basis of collaborative learning groups that help farmers and other professionals develop necessary knowledge. These groups have been favorably evaluated by most participants, and this article describes the results of our project, including our insights into development of such networks.

Circadian response of annual weeds to glyphosate and glufosinate

Five field experiments were conducted in 1998 and 1999 in Minnesota to examine the influence of time of day efficacy of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] and glufosinate [2-amino-4-(hydroxymethyl-phosphinyl)butanoic acid] applications on the control of annual weeds. Each experiment was designed to be a randomized complete block with four replications using plot sizes of 3×9 m. Glyphosate and glufosinate were applied at rates of 0.421 kg ae/ha and 0.292 kg ai/ha, respectively, with and without an additional adjuvant that consisted of 20% nonionic surfactant and 80% ammonium sulfate. All treatments were applied with water at 94 L/ha. Times of day for the application of herbicide were 06:00h, 09:00h, 12:00h, 15:00h, 18:00h, 21:00h, and 24:00h. Efficacy was evaluated 14 d after application by visual ratings. At 14 d, a circadian response to each herbicide was found, with greatest annual weed control observed with an application occurring between 09:00h and 18:00h and significantly less weed control observed with an application at 06:00h, 21:00h, or 24:00h. The addition of an adjuvant to both herbicides increased overall efficacy, but did not overcome the rhythmic time of day effect. Results of the multiple regression analysis showed that after environmental temperature, time of day was the second most important predictor of percent weed kill. Thus, circadian timing of herbicide application significantly influenced weed control with both glyphosate and glufosinate.

Public scholarship-linking weed science with public work

Abstract Weed scientists face complex and difficult challenges. Within our discipline, we must increase the sustainability of current weed management approaches and help respond to invasive plants as a component of global change. There also are major challenges that we share with other agricultural disciplines, such as mounting comprehensive efforts to address the problems of current agriculture. We believe that any effective response to these challenges will require public work, i.e., projects in which a diverse group of people work together—across lines of difference (professional, cultural, etc.)—to produce broad-based, systemic innovations that meet complex challenges. We propose that weed scientists should join relevant public-work projects by practicing “public scholarship.” We define public scholarship as original, creative, peer-evaluated intellectual work that is fully integrated in a public-work project. By full integration we mean that the scholars work serves to fuel the social (i.e., collective) learning of the public-work group. This condition requires that the scholar be a full participant in the group rather than just being in a consultative or advisory role. We present several case studies of weed scientists practicing public scholarship. These scientists found this mode of scholarship to be a highly effective means by which to address their professional priorities. Barriers to the practice of public scholarship include the lack of relevant guidelines and norms within academic culture, e.g., with regard to quality-assurance standards. But public scholarship offers weed scientists a new way of responding to increasingly urgent demands to show that our work effectively produces public value in return for public investment. We believe that graduate programs in weed science should begin to offer students opportunities to learn skills that are relevant to public scholarship.

Time of Day of Application Effect on Glyphosate and Glufosinate Efficacy

Concurrent with the development of glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant crops, applied research was conducted to maximize the effectiveness of these two herbicides. The objectives of this study were to examine the influence of time of day of herbicide application, adjuvant, and rate of glyphosate and glufosinate on annual weed control. Time of herbicide application influenced annual weed control of both glyphosate and glufosinate. Greatest annual weed control was observed between 0900 and 1800 h, while less weed control was observed at 0600, 2100, and 2400 h. Additional adjuvant or an increased rate of glyphosate or glufosinate improved efficacy, but did not overcome the time-of-day effect.

Circadian Response of Annual Weeds in a Natural Setting to High and Low Application Rates of Four Herbicides with Different Modes of Action

Four herbicides [glyphosate (GLYT), an amino acid synthesis inhibitor; glufosinate (GLUF), a glutamine synthetase inhibitor; fomesafen (FOME), a protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor; and chlorimuron ethyl (CLIM), an acetolactate synthase inhibitor] were used to examine the influence of time of day of application on the control of a variety of annual broadleaf weeds in field studies conducted in Minnesota (five studies on GLYT and GLUF, three studies on FOME and CLIM). All herbicides were applied with an adjuvant at recommended high and low (half or quarter strength) rates every 3h between 06:00 and 24:00h local time. Visual ratings of percent weed control evaluated at 14d were analyzed by herbicide and application rate for each study and across studies for time-of-day effect by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and single cosinor. A circadian response to each herbicide was found, with greatest weed control observed between 09:00 and 18:00h. Increasing the herbicide application rate did not overcome the time-of-day effect (ANOVA: p≤0.008 for time-of-day effect for each herbicide and application rate). The least-squares fit of a 24h cosine was significant (p≤0.001) for each herbicide and application rate, with double amplitudes of 18–82% (units=% visual control) and estimated peaks (acrophases) near midday between 12:40 and 13:35h. Analysis of residuals obtained from multiple regression that included weed height, herbicide rate, temperature, and relative humidity as independent factors also found a significant time-effect by both ANOVA and cosinor for each herbicide and rate, with acrophases advancing significantly by 3 to 7h for GLYT and GLUF, but not for FOME or CLIM. These results suggest that the four herbicides, while belonging to different families with different modes of action, may reveal different peak times of efficacy when adjusting for environmental factors. Nonetheless, each displays similar circadian patterns when influenced by these factors under natural seasonal field conditions. The within-day rhythmic differences found in weed control are large enough to warrant consideration of the practical financial and environmental importance of the time-of-day that these and other herbicides are applied.

Comparison of Herbicide Tactics to Minimize Species Shifts and Selection Pressure in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean

Abstract There are significant concerns over the long- and short-term implications of continuous glyphosate use and potential problems associated with weed species shifts and the development of glyphosate-resistant weed species. Field research was conducted to determine the effect of herbicide treatment and application timing on weed control in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Ten herbicide treatments were evaluated that represented a range of PPI, PRE, and POST-only application timings. All herbicide treatments included a reduced rate of glyphosate applied POST. PRE herbicides with residual properties followed by (fb) glyphosate POST provides more effective control of broadleaf weed species than POST-only treatments. There was no difference in soybean yield between PRE fb POST and POST-only treatments in 2008. Conversely, PRE fb POST herbicide treatments resulted in greater yield than POST-only treatments in 2009. Using PRE fb POST herbicide tactics improves weed control and reduces the risk for crop yield loss when dealing with both early- and late-emerging annual broadleaf weed species across variable cropping environments. Nomenclature: Glyphosate; common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEAL; common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATA; giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L., AMBTR.

Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Seed Production and Retention in Soybean and Field Margins

As herbicide-resistant weed populations become increasingly problematic in crop production, alternative strategies of weed control are necessary. Giant ragweed, one of the most competitive agricultural weeds in row crops, has evolved resistance to multiple herbicide biochemical sites of action within the plant, necessitating the development of new and integrated methods of weed control. This study assessed the quantity and duration of seed retention of giant ragweed grown in soybean fields and adjacent field margins. Seed retention of giant ragweed was monitored weekly during the 2012 to 2014 harvest seasons using seed collection traps. Giant ragweed plants produced an average of 1,818 seeds per plant, with 66% being potentially viable. Giant ragweed on average began shattering hard (potentially viable) and soft (nonviable) seeds September 12 and continued through October at an average rate of 0.75 and 0.44% of total seeds per day during September and October, respectively. Giant ragweed seeds remained on the plants well into the Minnesota soybean harvest season, with an average of 80% of the total seeds being retained on October 11, when Minnesota soybean harvest was approximately 75% completed in the years of the study. These results suggest that there is a sufficient amount of time to remove escaped giant ragweed from production fields and field margins before the seeds shatter by managing weed seed dispersal before or at crop harvest. Controlling weed seed dispersal has potential to manage herbicide-resistant giant ragweed by limiting replenishment of the weed seed bank. Nomenclature: Giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTR; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Conforme las poblaciones de malezas resistentes a herbicidas se hacen incrementalmente más problemáticas en la producción de cultivos, estrategias alternativas de control de malezas se hacen cada vez más necesarias. Ambrosia trifida, una de las malezas agrícolas más competitivas en cultivos en hileras, ha evolucionado resistencia a múltiples sitios bioquímicos de acción de herbicidas dentro de la planta, lo que ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de métodos nuevos e integrados de control de malezas. Este estudio evaluó la cantidad y duración de la retención de semilla de A. trifida creciendo en campos de soja y márgenes de campos adyacentes. La retención de semilla de A. trifida fue monitoreada semanalmente durante las temporadas de cosecha desde 2012 a 2014 usando trampas de colección de semilla. Las plantas de A. trifida produjeron un promedio de 1,818 semillas por planta, con una viabilidad potencial de 66%. En promedio, A. trifida inició la dispersión de semilla dura (potencialmente viable) y suave (no-viable) el 12 de Septiembre y continuó durante Octubre, con una tasa promedio de 0.75 y 0.44% del total de semillas por día, durante Septiembre y Octubre, respectivamente. Las semillas de A. trifida permanecieron en las plantas hasta la temporada de cosecha de soja en Minnesota, con un promedio de 80% del total de las semillas estando retenidas al 11 de Octubre, cuando la cosecha de soja en Minnesota había sido completada al 75%, en los años de este estudio. Estos resultados sugieren que existe una cantidad de tiempo suficiente para remover A. trifida que haya escapado al control en campos de producción y en márgenes de campos antes de que la semilla sea liberada de la planta, mediante el manejo de la dispersión de semilla de malezas antes o durante la cosecha. El controlar la dispersión de semillas de malezas tiene el potencial de manejar A. trifida resistente a herbicidas al limitar el suministro de nuevas semillas al banco de semillas de malezas.

Risk-efficiency criteria for evaluating economics of herbicide-based weed management systems in corn

Evaluation of economic outcome associated with a given weed management system is an important component in the decision-making process within crop production systems. The objective of this research was to investigate how risk-efficiency criteria could be used to improve herbicide-based weed management decision making, assuming different risk preferences among growers. Data were obtained from existing weed management trials in corn conducted at the University of Minnesota Southern Research and Outreach Center at Waseca. Weed control treatments represented a range of practices including one-pass soil-applied, one-pass postemergence, and sequential combinations of soil and postemergence herbicide application systems. Analysis of risk efficiency across 23 herbicide-based weed control treatments was determined with the mean variance and stochastic dominance techniques. We show how these techniques can result in different outcomes for the decision maker, depending on risk attitudes. For example, mean variance and stochastic dominance techniques are used to evaluate risk associated with one- vs. two-pass herbicide treatments with and without cultivation. Based on these analyses, it appears that a one-pass system is preferred by a risk-averse grower. However, we argue that this may not be the best option considering potential changes in weed emergence patterns, application timing concerns, etc. The techniques for economic analysis of weed control data outlined in this article will help growers match herbicide-based weed management systems to their own production philosophies based on economic risk. Nomenclature: Corn, Zea mays L. Additional index words: Analysis of variance, mean variance procedure, stochastic dominance. Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation; FSD, first-degree stochastic dominance; POST, postemergence; PRE, preemergence; SSD, second-degree stochastic dominance.