Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:02:51.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementing and conducting on-farm weed research with the use of GPS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Edward C. Luschei ,
Lee R. Van Wychen ,
Bruce D. Maxwell ,
Alvin J. Bussan ,
David Buschena  and
Daniel Goodman
Edward C. Luschei
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Lee R. Van Wychen
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Alvin J. Bussan
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
David Buschena
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Daniel Goodman
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The adoption of precision technologies that spatially register measurements using global positioning systems (GPS) greatly facilitates conducting large-scale on-farm research by farmers. On-farm experiments that utilize producer equipment include variations in agronomic practices that occur in situations where we want to predict the effect of inputs on yield. The domain of inference for such on-farm studies therefore more closely matches that desired by researchers. To investigate the feasibility of on-farm research using GPS, a study was conducted to evaluate the potential benefit of site-specific weed management. The study utilized producer-maintained field-scale equipment on four Montana farms in dryland spring wheat production. Paired site-specific and whole-field herbicide treatment areas were established in 0.9 to 1.9-ha blocks using consultant weed maps and a geographic information system (GIS). Yield was unaffected by herbicide treatment strategy (site-specific or broadcast). Minimal detectable yield differences were evaluated for the experimental design (0.2 T ha−1). Net returns increased when the percentage of field infested by wild oat decreased. Visual ratings of wild oat density taken at harvest indicated no difference in wild oat control between treatments in two of four site-years. This research suggests that producer-owned equipment can be used to compare treatments, but the accuracy and subsequent power of such comparisons are likely to be low.

Keywords

Fenoxapropimazamethabenztralkoxydimkochia, Kochia scoparia L. KCHSCRussian thistle, Salsola iberica Sennen and Pau SASKRspring wheat, Triticum aestivum L.wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFASite-specific agriculturesite-specific managementprecision farmingfield-scale experimentationintegrated weed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , August 2001 , pp. 536 - 542
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Christensen, S., Heisel, T., and Walter, A. M. 1996. Patch spraying in cereals. Pages 963–968 In Brown, H., Cussans, G. W., Devine, M. D., et al., eds. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress. Flakkebjerg, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. and Walter, A. M. 1995. Site-specific weed management. Pages 151–160 In Olesen, S. E., ed. Proceedings of the Seminar on Site Specific Farming. Tjele, Denmark: Danish Institute of Plant and Soil Science.Google Scholar
Cook, S. E. and Adams, M. L. 1998. On-farm experimentation: an empirical approach to spatially variable crop management. Pages 101–110 In Medd, R. W. and Pratley, J. E., eds. Precision Weed Management in Crops and Pastures. Glen Osmond, SA, Australia: CRC for Weed Management Systems.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Marshall, C. 1987. Dangers in testing statistical hypotheses. Ann. Appl. Biol. 111:469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotway-Crawford, C. A., Bullock, D. G., Pierce, F. J., Stroup, W. W., Hergert, G. W., and Eskridge, K. M. 1997. Experimental design issues and statistical evaluation techniques for site-specific management. Pages 301–335 In Pierce, F. J. and Sadler, E. J., eds. The State of Site-Specific Management for Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Heisel, T., Christensen, S., and Walter, A. M. 1996. Weed managing model for patch spraying in cereals. Pages 999–1007 In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisel, T., Christensen, S., and Walter, A. M. 1997. Validation of weed patch spraying in spring barley—preliminary trial. Pages 879–886 In Stafford, J. V., ed. Proceedings of the First European Conference on Precision Agriculture. Volume 2.Google Scholar
Heisel, T., Christensen, S., and Walter, A. M. 1999. Whole-field experiments with site-specific weed management. Pages 759–768 In Stafford, J. V., ed. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Precision Agriculture. Part 2.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Cardina, J., and Mortensen, D. A. 1997. Site-specific weed management: current and future directions. Pages 131–147 In Pierce, F. J. and Sadler, E. J., eds. The state of site-specific management for agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1995. A simulation of herbicide use based on weed spatial distribution. Weed Res. 35:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. S. 1998. Spatial autoregression modeling of site-specific wheat yield. Geoderma 85:181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luschei, E. C., Van Wychen, L. R., Maxwell, B. D., Bussan, A. J., Buschena, D., and Goodman, D. 2001. Parameterizing weed interference models with site-specific data. In press In Robert, P. C., ed. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Colliver, C. T. 1995. Expanding economic thresholds by including spatial and temporal weed dynamics. Pages 1069–1076 In Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Volume 3.Google Scholar
Moore, M. 1997. An Investigation into the Accuracy of Yield Maps and Their Subsequent Use in Crop Management. . Cranfield University. 371 p. (http://www1.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk/cpf/papers/Mark_Moore_Thesis) Accessed January 7, 2001.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Dieleman, J. A., and Johnson, G. A. 1998. Weed spatial variation and weed management. Pages 293–309 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Mulla, D. J., Bhatti, A. U., and Kunkel, R. 1990. Methods for removing spatial variability from field research trials. Adv. Soil Sci. 13:201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, S. E., ed. 1995. Conclusion of the seminar on site specific farming. Pages 198–200 In Proceedings of the Seminar on Site Specific Farming. Danish Institute of Plant and Soil Science.Google Scholar
Oriade, C. A., King, R. P., Forcella, F., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. A bioeconomic analysis of site-specific management for weed control. Rev. Ag. Econ. 18:523–535.Google Scholar
Paice, M.E.R., Day, W., Rew, L. J., and Howard, A. 1998. A stochastic simulation model for evaluating the concept of patch spraying. Weed Res. 38:373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, F. J., Anderson, N. W., Colvin, T. S., Schueller, J. K., Humburg, D. S., and McLaughlin, N. B. 1997. Yield mapping. Pages 211–243 In Pierce, F. J. and Sadler, E. J., eds. The State of Site-Specific Management for Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratley, J. E. and Lemerle, D. 1998. Precision weed management: outcomes for research. Pages 151–154 In Medd, R. W. and Pratley, J. E., eds. Precision Weed Management in Crops and Pastures. Glen Osmund, SA, Australia: CRC for Weed Management.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Cussans, G. W., Mugglestone, M. A., and Miller, P.C.H. 1996. A technique for mapping the spatial distribution of Elymus repens, with estimates of the potential reduction in herbicide usage by patch spraying. Weed Res. 36:283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rzewnicki, P. E., Thompson, R., Lesoing, G. W., Elmore, R. W., Francis, C. A., Parkhurst, A. M., and Moomaw, R. S. 1988. On-farm experiment designs and implications for locating research sites. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 3:168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, P. C. and Alley, M. M. 1993. Accounting for spatial yield variability in field experiments increases statistical power. Agron. J. 85:1254–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroder, D. and Schnug, E. 1995. Applications of large scale yield mapping to field experimentation. Asp. Appl. Biol. 43:117–124.Google Scholar
Spaner, D., McKenzie, D. B., Todd, A. G., Simms, A., MacPherson, M., and Woodrow, E. F. 2000. Six years of adaptive and on-farm spring cereal research in Newfoundland. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M., Gerhards, R., Reichart, S., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1998. Weed seedling population responses to a method of site-specific weed management. Pages 123–132 In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuest, S. B., McCool, D. K., Miller, B. C., and Veseth, R. J. 1999. Development of more effective conservation farming systems through participatory on-farm research. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 14:98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar