Modeling Weed Distribution for Improved Postemergence Control Decisions

Broadleaf weeds apparently have patchy distri- butions within a field while POST control decisions are made assuming a regular spatial distribution. As a result, yield loss from weed competition may be overestimated, possibly leading to mistakes in choosing the optimal control treatment. Data on distribution of broadleaf weeds in 14 soybean fields were used in simulation experiments to investigate the potential for improving decision making with information about weed patchiness. The feasibility of modeling weed distribution in individual fields was also examined. Overall, the cost of assuming a regular distribution when making POST decisions was found to be low. Errors that occurred most often involved recommending more intensive control than was actually required, although in a few cases less intensive control was recommended. Error in the yield loss estimated for the uncontrolled population did not indicate the potential for a mistake in decision making for a field. Accurately modeling distribution of weeds within fields may be difficult as a result of correlations between distributions of individual species within a field and variation in distributions between fields. Nomenclature: Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Additional index words. Simulation, decision models, weed management, weed competition, Glycine max.

[1]  M. Marra,et al.  An Economic Threshold Model for Weeds in Soybeans (Glycine max) , 1983, Weed Science.

[2]  John W. Tukey,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis. , 1979 .

[3]  A. Légére,et al.  Competition and Canopy Architecture as Affected by Soybean (Glycine max) Row Width and Density of Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) , 1989, Weed Science.

[4]  Clement A. Tisdell,et al.  Weed control economics , 1987 .

[5]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[6]  H. D. Coble,et al.  HERB : decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean , 1991 .

[7]  Bioeconomic weed management models for sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) production. , 1990 .

[8]  B. Gerowitt,et al.  Weed economic thresholds in cereals in the Federal Republic of Germany , 1990 .

[9]  J. E. Glynn,et al.  Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[10]  R. Cousens,et al.  Models of yield loss-weed density relationships , 1984 .

[11]  T. Southwood,et al.  Ecological Methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations , 1967, Pedobiologia.

[12]  Robert L. Zimdahl,et al.  Bioeconomic Modeling to Simulate Weed Control Strategies for Continuous Corn (Zea mays) , 1986, Weed Science.

[13]  Emerson D. Nafziger,et al.  Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). , 1987 .

[14]  Roger D. Cousens,et al.  The effect of weed distribution on predictions of yield loss. , 1990 .

[15]  D. Pannell Responses to risk in weed control decisions under expected profit maximisation. , 1990 .

[16]  E. Marshall Field‐scale estimates of grass weed populations in arable land , 1988 .

[17]  R. Hayes,et al.  Decision Criterion for Profitable Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) Management in Soybeans (Glycine max) , 1989, Weed Technology.

[18]  P. Thornton,et al.  Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control , 1990 .