results treatments that did not differ at time of data collection were combined
DESCRIPTION
Integrating Mechanical Weed Management to Avert Herbicide Resistance in Conservation Tillage Systems Ryan T. Bates, Robert S. Gallagher, William S. Curran Department of Crop and Soil Sciences The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. Conclusions - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Results Treatments that did not differ at time of data collection were combined. Tukey comparisons at α = 0.05.
0100020003000400050006000700080009000
Wee
d B
iom
ass
(kg
ha-1
)
d cd
a-d
cd bcd cd
a
abc abab
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Wee
d B
iom
ass
(kg
ha-1
)
C CCC
B
C C
BAB
A
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Wee
d D
ensi
ty (P
lant
s m
-2)
D D
A
AB
BC
A
A
C
020406080
100120140160180200
Wee
d De
nsity
(Pla
nts m
-2)
FEF
BC
DEF
CDE
CD
A
AB
020406080
100120140160180200
Wee
d De
nsity
(Pla
nts m
-2)
e
cd
e
bcd
de
bc
a
ab
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Wee
d D
ensi
ty (P
lant
s m
-2)
d cd
bbbc
b
aa
Integrating Mechanical Weed Management to Avert Herbicide Resistance in Conservation Tillage Systems Ryan T. Bates, Robert S. Gallagher, William S. Curran
Department of Crop and Soil SciencesThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Materials and Methods In 2008 and 2009, a complete randomized block
design was set up at Rock Springs, PA Corn and Soybean Ten treatments using surface tillage implements
and/or herbicides and a weedy checko Herbicides
I. Broadcast herbicidesII. Herbicide in a 30 cm band over the row at planting
(Band)• Herbicide use reduced 60% per hectare compared
to broadcasto Mechanical Tools
I. Vertical coulter implement (Fig. 1) and rotary harrow (Fig. 2) (VC/RH)• Used in combination to control weeds and aerate
the soil prior to planting• Disrupts only the top 5 cm of soil• Could replace burn down herbicides
II. High residue rotary hoe (Fig. 3) (Hoe)• Performed 2-3 times shortly after planting• Disrupts weed seedlings in the white thread stage• Penetrates soil up to 2.5 cm• Could replace pre emergence herbicides
III. High residue row cultivator (Fig. 4) (Cult)• Performed 3-4 weeks after crop emergence• Controls weeds between crop rows• Penetrates 5 cm deep; designed to uproot, slice,
or bury weeds• Could replace post herbicides
Parameters evaluated:• Weed density• Weed biomass
Conclusions Substituting mechanical tools
for herbicides in high residue systems may be as effective as herbicides while reducing the potential for evolution of herbicide resistant weeds.
Mechanical tools can be effective in corn and soybean.
The vertical coulter/rotary harrow controlled early season weeds under 5 cm, but was less effective on larger weeds.
The rotary hoe was most inconsistent at reducing weed density and weed biomass.
The cultivator was most effective at reducing weed biomass.
Herbicides in a 30 cm band over the row plus the cultivator reduced weed biomass compared to no-band, and controlled weeds similar to a post emergence broadcast herbicide.
The cultivator was effective at removing weed escapes from pre emergence broadcast herbicides, reducing the potential for herbicide resistant weeds.
Combinations of herbicides and mechanical tools have the potential to control weeds and reduce the potential for evolution of herbicide resistant weeds, preserving herbicides for future use.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
ObjectiveTo evaluate surface tillage implements for their inclusion into an integrated weed management system for preventing, delaying, and controlling herbicide resistant weeds in high residue corn and soybean systems.
Background Corn and soybean systems in the US occupy 67 million hectares using various weed
management strategies with over 97% of the hectares using herbicides. Heavy reliance on few herbicides for weed management will continue to increase the
abundance of herbicide resistant weeds. Herbicide resistant weeds need to be managed with additional herbicides or other
management practices. Increased concerns about preventing and controlling herbicide resistant weeds has
created the need to integrate nonchemical management tactics, while maintaining key soil conservation practices in corn and soybean.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Wee
d B
iom
ass
(kg
ha-1
)
d d d d
b
dcd
bc
b
a
0100020003000400050006000700080009000
Wee
d Bi
omas
s (Kg
ha-1
)
C
B
BCBCBC
CC
A
B
BC
Figure 10. 2008 End of season weed biomass.
Figure 11. 2009 Weed density 30 days after planting. Figure 12. 2009 End of season weed biomass.
Figure 9. 2008 Weed density 40 days after planting.
Figure 8. 2009 End of season weed biomass.
Figure 6. 2008 End of season weed biomass.
Corn Results
Soybean ResultsFigure 7. 2009 Weed density 30 days after planting.
Figure 5. 2008 Weed density 40 days after planting.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4