HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cox, W. J. Articles by Bergstrom, G. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cox, W. J. Articles by Bergstrom, G. C. Agricola Articles by Cox, W. J. Articles by Bergstrom, G. C.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Agronomics and Economics of Different Weed Management Systems in Corn and Soybean

^a Dep. of Plant Pathology, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
^b Dep. of Ext., Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520 USA

wjc3{at}cornell.edu

Received for publication July 9, 1998. The USDA has a goal of implementing integrated pest management (IPM) practices on 75% of crop area by 2000. Growers require more economic information before adopting IPM practices. A field study was initiated in New York to evaluate weed control, yields, and net returns of chemical (broadcast herbicides), chemical–mechanical (banded herbicides and cultivations), and mechanical (rotary hoe and cultivations) weed management under moldboard plow and chisel tillage in corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Chemical and chemical–mechanical weed management had similar corn net returns under moldboard plow ($370 and $355 ha^-1, respectively) and chisel tillage ($282 and $287 ha^-1). Mechanical weed management had less net returns in moldboard plow ($302 ha^-1) and chisel tillage ($121 ha^-1) because of 15% lesser corn densities and greater weed densities, especially in chisel tillage. In soybean, mechanical weed management in moldboard plow tillage had similar weed density (1.5 weeds m^-2) lower yield (2.71 Mg ha^-1), but similar net return ($107.50 ha^-1) compared with chemical (1.3 weeds m^-2, 2.92 Mg ha^-1, and $85.60 ha^-1, respectively) and chemical–mechanical weed management (1.0 weeds m^-2, 2.78 Mg ha^-1 and $99.35 ha^-1, respectively). In chisel tillage, mechanical weed management had greater weed density (7.4 weeds m^-2), lower yield (2.2 Mg ha^-1), and lower net return (-$7.80 ha^-1) compared with chemical (1.9 weeds m^-2, 2.8 Mg ha^-1, and $56.80 ha^-1, respectively) and chemical–mechanical weed management (1.9 weeds m^-2, 2.4 Mg ha^-1, and $27.30 ha^-1). Corn and soybean growers apparently can adopt chemical–mechanical weed management and maintain net returns. Soybean growers who use moldboard plow tillage can also adopt mechanical weed management and maintain net returns.

Abbreviations: GDD, growing degree days • IPM, integrated pest management

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. W. Katsvairo and W. J. Cox Economics of Cropping Systems Featuring Different Rotations, Tillage, and Management Agron. J., May 1, 2000; 92(3): 485 - 493. [Abstract] [Full Text]