Weed Decision Threshold as a Key Factor for Herbicide Reductions in Site-Specific Weed Management

The objective of this research was to explore the influence that weed decision threshold (DT; expressed as plants m−2), weed spatial distribution patterns, and spatial resolution of sampling have on potential reduction in herbicide use under site-specific weed management. As a case study, a small plot located in a typical corn field in central Spain was used, constructing very precise distribution maps of the major weeds present. These initial maps were used to generate herbicide prescription maps for each weed species based on different DTs and sampling resolutions. The simulation of herbicide prescription maps consisted of on/off spraying decisions based on information from two different approaches for weed detection: ground-based vs. aerial sensors. In general, simulations based on ground sensors resulted in higher herbicide savings than those based on aerial sensors. The extent of herbicide reductions derived from patch spraying was directly related to the density and the spatial distribution of each weed species. Herbicide savings were potentially high (up to 66%) with relatively sparse patchy weed species (e.g., johnsongrass) but were only moderate (10 to 20%) with abundant and regularly distributed weed species (e.g., velvetleaf). However, DT has proven to be a key factor, with higher DTs resulting in reductions in herbicide use for all the weed species and all sampling procedures and resolutions. Moreover, increasing DT from 6 to 12 plants m−2 resulted in additional herbicide savings of up to 50% in the simulations for johnsongrass and up to 28% savings in the simulations for common cocklebur. Nonetheless, since DT determines the accuracy of patch spraying, the consequences of using higher DTs could be leaving areas unsprayed, which could adversely affect crop yields and future weed infestations, including herbicide-resistant weeds. Considering that the relationship between DT and accuracy of herbicide application depends on weed spatial pattern, this work has demonstrated the possibility of using higher DT values in weeds with a clear patchy distribution compared with weeds distributed regularly. Nomenclature: Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANST; johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHA; velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTH; corn, Zea mays L.

[1]  Dieleman,et al.  Characterizing the spatial pattern of Abutilon theophrasti seedling patches , 1999 .

[2]  McDonald,et al.  Model of crop:weed competition applied to maize:Abutilon theophrasti interactions. II. Assessing the impact of climate: implications for economic thresholds , 1999 .

[3]  César Fernández-Quintanilla,et al.  Discrimination of sterile oat (Avena sterilis) in winter barley (Hordeum vulgare) using QuickBird satellite images , 2011 .

[4]  Susan E. Weaver,et al.  Weed Thresholds: Theory and Applicability , 1999, Expanding the Context of Weed Management.

[5]  R. Gerhards,et al.  Precision farming for weed management: techniques , 2008, Gesunde Pflanzen.

[6]  Rew,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of mapping weeds in seedling crops using airborne digital imaging: Avena spp. in seedling triticale , 1999 .

[7]  R. Gerhards,et al.  Practical experiences with a system for site‐specific weed control in arable crops using real‐time image analysis and GPS‐controlled patch spraying , 2006 .

[8]  Esmaeil S. Nadimi,et al.  Site‐specific weed control technologies , 2009 .

[9]  Gail G. Wilkerson,et al.  Weed management decision models: pitfalls, perceptions, and possibilities of the economic threshold approach , 2002 .

[10]  Jason K. Norsworthy,et al.  Late-Season Seed Production in Arable Weed Communities: Management Implications , 2012, Weed Science.

[11]  G. Johnson,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Weed Seedling Populations Using Geostatistics , 1996, Weed Science.

[12]  J. Cardina,et al.  Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Competition and Economic Thresholds in Conventional- and No-Tillage Corn (Zea mays) , 1995, Weed Science.

[13]  J. Wallinga,et al.  Are the spatial patterns of weeds scale‐invariant? , 2004 .

[14]  Gilles D. Leroux,et al.  Prediction of corn (Zea mays) yield loss from early observations of the relative leaf area and the relative leaf cover of weeds , 1999, Weed Science.

[15]  L. Tian,et al.  A Review on Remote Sensing of Weeds in Agriculture , 2004, Precision Agriculture.

[16]  G. Roth,et al.  Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Interference and Seed Production in Corn Silage and Grain1 , 2004, Weed Technology.

[17]  José Dorado,et al.  Spatial and temporal dynamics of Sorghum halepense patches in maize crops , 2012 .

[18]  Alfred Stein,et al.  Testing the spatial significance of weed patterns in arable land using Mead's test , 2007 .

[19]  L. J. Wiles,et al.  Beyond patch spraying: site-specific weed management with several herbicides , 2009, Precision Agriculture.

[20]  Haldor Fykse,et al.  Patch spraying of weeds in spring cereals: Simulated influences of threshold level and spraying resolution on spraying errors and potential herbicide reduction , 2007 .

[21]  José Dorado,et al.  Reliability of a Visual Recognition System for Detection of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in Corn , 2011, Weed Technology.

[22]  S. Christensen,et al.  Image-based thresholds for weeds in maize fields , 2015 .

[23]  David A. Mortensen,et al.  The Threshold Concept and its Application to Weed Science , 1992, Weed Technology.

[24]  C. Fernández-Quintanilla,et al.  Herbicide savings and economic benefits of several strategies to control Sorghum halepense in maize crops , 2013 .

[25]  D. Mortensen,et al.  Two-Year Weed Seedling Population Responses to a Post-Emergent Method of Site-Specific Weed Management , 2000, Precision Agriculture.

[26]  Angela Ribeiro,et al.  Accuracy and Feasibility of Optoelectronic Sensors for Weed Mapping in Wide Row Crops , 2011, Sensors.

[27]  T. Griffin,et al.  In-Field Movement of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Its Impact on Cotton Lint Yield: Evidence Supporting a Zero-Threshold Strategy , 2014, Weed Science.

[28]  José Dorado,et al.  Spatial Distribution Patterns of Weed Communities in Corn Fields of Central Spain , 2015, Weed Science.

[29]  J. Cardina,et al.  The nature and consequence of weed spatial distribution , 1997, Weed Science.

[30]  Dawn Y. Wyse-Pester,et al.  Infestation and spatial dependence of weed seedling and mature weed populations in corn , 2002, Weed Science.

[31]  Lutz Plümer,et al.  The sampling problem in weed control - are currently applied sampling strategies adequate for site-specific weed control? , 2005 .

[32]  Louis Longchamps,et al.  An Imagery-Based Weed Cover Threshold Established Using Expert Knowledge , 2014, Weed Science.

[33]  L. Longchamps,et al.  Validation of a Management Program Based on A Weed Cover Threshold Model: Effects on Herbicide Use and Weed Populations , 2009, Weed Science.

[34]  Gilles D. Leroux,et al.  Validation of an Operator-Assisted Module to Measure Weed and Crop Leaf Cover by Digital Image Analysis , 1998, Weed Technology.

[35]  César Fernández-Quintanilla,et al.  Simulating the effects of weed spatial pattern and resolution of mapping and spraying on economics of site-specific management , 2004 .

[36]  L. Wax,et al.  Grower Acceptance of Economic Thresholds for Weed Management in Illinois , 1997, Weed Technology.

[37]  Haldor Fykse,et al.  Simulating the effects of mapping and spraying resolution and threshold level on accuracy of patch spraying decisions and herbicide use based on mapped weed data , 2008 .

[38]  Roland Gerhards,et al.  Potential use of ground-based sensor technologies for weed detection. , 2014, Pest management science.