Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T10:20:49.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Scouting Methods in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Using Theoretical Net Returns from HADSS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David L. Jordan ,
Gail G. Wilkerson  and
David W. Krueger
David L. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Gail G. Wilkerson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
David W. Krueger
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: david_jordan@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A perceived limitation to incorporating herbicide application decision support system (HADSS) into routine peanut weed management decisions is efficient scouting of fields. A total of 52 peanut fields were scouted from 1997 through 2001 in North Carolina to determine the weed density in a 9.3-m2 section for each 0.4-ha grid of the field. These weed populations and their spatial distributions were used to compare theoretical net return (TNR) over herbicide investment for various scouting methods and weed management approaches. HADSS was used to determine the expected net return for each treatment in each 0.4-ha section of every field under differing assumptions of weed size, soil moisture conditions, and pricing structures. The treatment with the highest net return averaged across all 0.4-ha grids was considered to be the optimal whole-field treatment. For all 52 fields, TNR for the best whole-field treatment and for site-specific weed management (applying the most economical recommendation on each 0.4-ha grid) averaged $414 and $435/ha, respectively. Estimated return from the commercial postemergence herbicide program of aciflurofen plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB followed by clethodim (where grass was present) averaged $316/ha across all 52 fields. For fields of 5 ha or more (17 fields) in which 12 or more samples were taken, TNR was $500, $510, and $516/ha for three-sample (one pass through the middle of the field with samples taken on both ends and the center of the field), six-sample (two passes through the field with three stops per pass), and full-sample (one stop for each 0.4 ha) approaches, respectively.

Keywords

PeanutArachis hypogaea LEconomic thresholdsprescription weed managementweed interferenceweed scoutingweed thresholdsHADSS, herbicide application decision support systemTNR, theoretical net return over herbicide investment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 358 - 365
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

Bailey, J. E. 1999. Integrated method of organizing, computing, and deploying weather-based disease advisories for selected peanut diseases. Peanut Sci. 26: 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A. C., Price, A. J., Sturgill, M. C., Buol, G. S., and Wilkerson, G. G. 2003. HADSS, Pocket HERB, and WebHADSS: decision aids for field crops. Weed Technol. 17: 412–420.Google Scholar
Brown, S., Todd, J., Culbreath, A., Pappu, H., Baldwin, J., and Beasley, J. 1999. Tomato spotted wilt of peanut: identifying and avoiding high-risk situations. University of Georgia Extension Bulletin 1165. 8 p.Google Scholar
Bullen, S. G., Smith, N., and Pease, J. 2002. Regional and farm level economic impacts of peanut quota changes. In Sholar, J. R., ed. Proceedings of the American Peanut Research and Educational Society. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Educational Society. 34: 42.Google Scholar
Chvosta, J., Thurman, W. N., and Brown, B. 2002. The economic effects of considered change in federal peanut policy. In Sholar, J. R., ed. Proceedings of the American Peanut Research and Educational Society. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Educational Society. 34: 42–43.Google Scholar
Gold, H. J., Bay, J., and Wilkerson, G. G. 1996. Scouting for weeds, based on the negative binomial distribution. Weed Sci. 44: 504–510.Google Scholar
Herbert, D. A. Jr., Petka, W. J., and Brandenburg, R. L. 1997. A risk index for determining insecticide treatments for southern corn rootworm in peanut. Peanut Sci. 24: 128–134.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Brandenburg, R. L., Bailey, J. E., Johnson, P. D., Royals, B. M., and Curtis, V. L. 1999. Cost effectiveness of pest management systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) grown in North Carolina. Peanut Sci. 26: 85–94.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2003. Peanut weed management. 2003 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service AG-331. 108 p.Google Scholar
Krueger, D. W., Wilkerson, G. G., Coble, H. D., and Gold, H. J. 2000. An economic analysis of binomial sampling for weed scouting. Weed Sci. 48: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, G. E., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 1998. Validation of HERB computer decision aid model for peanuts. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 216.Google Scholar
Murdock, S. W. and Murray, D. S. 2002. Obtaining weed populations for computerized Decision Support System (DSI) inputs: counts versus estimations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 130.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Economic evaluation of HADSS computer program in North Carolina peanut. Weed Sci. 50: 91–100.Google Scholar
Sturgill, M. C., Wilkerson, G. G., Wilcut, J., Bennett, A. C., and Buol, G. S. 2001. HADSS 2001 User's Manual. Raleigh, NC: Research Bulletin 192, Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 244–259.Google Scholar
Wehjte, G., Wilcut, J. W., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. 1988. Relative tolerance of peanuts to alachlor and metolachlor. Peanut Sci. 15: 53–56.Google Scholar
Wehjte, G., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1992. Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) and associated weeds. Weed Sci. 40: 90–95.Google Scholar
White, A. D. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Validation of HERB for use in peanut. Weed Technol. 11: 573–579.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehjte, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T., eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research and Educational Society. pp. 207–244.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992. Value of information about weed distribution for improving postemergence control decisions. Crop Prot. 11: 547–554.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83: 413–417.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Wiles, L. J., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Weed management decision models: pitfalls, perceptions, and possibilities of the economic threshold approach. Weed Sci. 50: 411–424.Google Scholar