The impact of electrocution treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean

Field experiments were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to determine the effectiveness of electrocution on several weeds commonly encountered in Missouri soybean production using an implement known as The Weed Zapper™. In the first study, the effectiveness of electrocution on waterhemp, cocklebur, giant a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Weed technology 2022-08, Vol.36 (4), p.481-489
Hauptverfasser: Schreier, Haylee, Bish, Mandy, Bradley, Kevin W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 489
container_issue 4
container_start_page 481
container_title Weed technology
container_volume 36
creator Schreier, Haylee
Bish, Mandy
Bradley, Kevin W.
description Field experiments were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to determine the effectiveness of electrocution on several weeds commonly encountered in Missouri soybean production using an implement known as The Weed Zapper™. In the first study, the effectiveness of electrocution on waterhemp, cocklebur, giant and common ragweed, horseweed, giant and yellow foxtail, and barnyardgrass was determined. Electrocution was applied when plants reached average heights and/or growth stages of 30 cm, 60 cm, flowering, pollination, and seed set. Electrocution was applied once or twice, at two different tractor speeds. Electrocution was more effective at the later plant growth stages. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that control of weed species was most related to plant height and amount of plant moisture at the time of electrocution. When plants contained seed at the time of electrocution, viability was reduced from 54% to 80% among the species evaluated. A second study determined the effect of electrocution on late-season waterhemp plants, and also soybean injury and yield. Electrocution timings took place throughout reproductive soybean growth stages. The control of waterhemp escapes within the soybean trial ranged from 51% to 97%. Yield of soybean electrocuted at the R4 and R6 growth stages was similar to that of the nontreated control, but soybean yield was reduced by 11% to 26% following electrocution at all other timings. However, the visual injury and yield loss observed in these experiments likely represents a worst-case scenario because growers who maintain a clear height differential between waterhemp and the soybean canopy would not need to maintain contact with the soybean canopy. Overall, results from these experiments indicate that electrocution as part of an integrated weed-management program could eliminate late-season herbicide-resistant weed escapes in soybean, and reduce the number and viability of weed seed that return to the soil seedbank. Nomenclature: Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.; common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L.; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.; giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm.; giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.; horseweed, Erigeron canadensis L.; yellow foxtail, Setaria pumila Poir.; waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/wet.2022.56
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2726137537</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2726137537</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b262t-48b7e3f4a2d9afdacc37597d9b942300ff46c84f13c4b5f18f1ec9890e4054ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsnv0DAk8jWJJvd7B6l-A8KXiroKWSzE0zZJjVJLf32ZlnPXmaYmR_vMQ-ha0oWlFBxf4C0YISxRVWfoBmtKlIwwckpmpGmJQUpxcc5uohxQwitGSMz9Ln-Amy3O6UT9gbDADoFr_fJeodTAJW24FLEeToA9Fh7l-8DVq6fFnEsP1Z1drDpiK3D0R87UO4SnRk1RLj663P0_vS4Xr4Uq7fn1-XDquhYzVLBm05AabhifatMr7QuRdWKvu1azkpCjOG1brihpeZdZWhjKOg2fwOcVFz15RzdTLq74L_3EJPc-H1w2VIywWqa5UqRqbuJ0sHHGMDIXbBbFY6SEjlmJ3N2csxOVnWmbye6s947-Jf9BYbscFI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2726137537</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The impact of electrocution treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Schreier, Haylee ; Bish, Mandy ; Bradley, Kevin W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schreier, Haylee ; Bish, Mandy ; Bradley, Kevin W.</creatorcontrib><description>Field experiments were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to determine the effectiveness of electrocution on several weeds commonly encountered in Missouri soybean production using an implement known as The Weed Zapper™. In the first study, the effectiveness of electrocution on waterhemp, cocklebur, giant and common ragweed, horseweed, giant and yellow foxtail, and barnyardgrass was determined. Electrocution was applied when plants reached average heights and/or growth stages of 30 cm, 60 cm, flowering, pollination, and seed set. Electrocution was applied once or twice, at two different tractor speeds. Electrocution was more effective at the later plant growth stages. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that control of weed species was most related to plant height and amount of plant moisture at the time of electrocution. When plants contained seed at the time of electrocution, viability was reduced from 54% to 80% among the species evaluated. A second study determined the effect of electrocution on late-season waterhemp plants, and also soybean injury and yield. Electrocution timings took place throughout reproductive soybean growth stages. The control of waterhemp escapes within the soybean trial ranged from 51% to 97%. Yield of soybean electrocuted at the R4 and R6 growth stages was similar to that of the nontreated control, but soybean yield was reduced by 11% to 26% following electrocution at all other timings. However, the visual injury and yield loss observed in these experiments likely represents a worst-case scenario because growers who maintain a clear height differential between waterhemp and the soybean canopy would not need to maintain contact with the soybean canopy. Overall, results from these experiments indicate that electrocution as part of an integrated weed-management program could eliminate late-season herbicide-resistant weed escapes in soybean, and reduce the number and viability of weed seed that return to the soil seedbank. Nomenclature: Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.; common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L.; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.; giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm.; giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.; horseweed, Erigeron canadensis L.; yellow foxtail, Setaria pumila Poir.; waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-037X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2740</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/wet.2022.56</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Agricultural equipment ; Canopies ; Correlation coefficient ; Correlation coefficients ; Costs ; Crop production ; Crop yield ; Crops ; Effectiveness ; Electricity ; Electrocutions ; Experiments ; Field tests ; Flowering ; Herbicides ; Laboratories ; mechanical control ; Moisture effects ; Plant growth ; Plants (botany) ; Pollination ; Seed banks ; Seed set ; Seeds ; Soybeans ; Surfactants ; Viability ; Visual observation ; Weed control ; weed escape ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed technology, 2022-08, Vol.36 (4), p.481-489</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.</rights><rights>The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b262t-48b7e3f4a2d9afdacc37597d9b942300ff46c84f13c4b5f18f1ec9890e4054ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b262t-48b7e3f4a2d9afdacc37597d9b942300ff46c84f13c4b5f18f1ec9890e4054ad3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9373-326X ; 0000-0003-4277-420X ; 0000-0003-3189-8784</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schreier, Haylee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bish, Mandy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradley, Kevin W.</creatorcontrib><title>The impact of electrocution treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean</title><title>Weed technology</title><addtitle>Weed Technol</addtitle><description>Field experiments were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to determine the effectiveness of electrocution on several weeds commonly encountered in Missouri soybean production using an implement known as The Weed Zapper™. In the first study, the effectiveness of electrocution on waterhemp, cocklebur, giant and common ragweed, horseweed, giant and yellow foxtail, and barnyardgrass was determined. Electrocution was applied when plants reached average heights and/or growth stages of 30 cm, 60 cm, flowering, pollination, and seed set. Electrocution was applied once or twice, at two different tractor speeds. Electrocution was more effective at the later plant growth stages. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that control of weed species was most related to plant height and amount of plant moisture at the time of electrocution. When plants contained seed at the time of electrocution, viability was reduced from 54% to 80% among the species evaluated. A second study determined the effect of electrocution on late-season waterhemp plants, and also soybean injury and yield. Electrocution timings took place throughout reproductive soybean growth stages. The control of waterhemp escapes within the soybean trial ranged from 51% to 97%. Yield of soybean electrocuted at the R4 and R6 growth stages was similar to that of the nontreated control, but soybean yield was reduced by 11% to 26% following electrocution at all other timings. However, the visual injury and yield loss observed in these experiments likely represents a worst-case scenario because growers who maintain a clear height differential between waterhemp and the soybean canopy would not need to maintain contact with the soybean canopy. Overall, results from these experiments indicate that electrocution as part of an integrated weed-management program could eliminate late-season herbicide-resistant weed escapes in soybean, and reduce the number and viability of weed seed that return to the soil seedbank. Nomenclature: Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.; common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L.; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.; giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm.; giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.; horseweed, Erigeron canadensis L.; yellow foxtail, Setaria pumila Poir.; waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.</description><subject>Agricultural equipment</subject><subject>Canopies</subject><subject>Correlation coefficient</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Crop production</subject><subject>Crop yield</subject><subject>Crops</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>Electricity</subject><subject>Electrocutions</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Field tests</subject><subject>Flowering</subject><subject>Herbicides</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>mechanical control</subject><subject>Moisture effects</subject><subject>Plant growth</subject><subject>Plants (botany)</subject><subject>Pollination</subject><subject>Seed banks</subject><subject>Seed set</subject><subject>Seeds</subject><subject>Soybeans</subject><subject>Surfactants</subject><subject>Viability</subject><subject>Visual observation</subject><subject>Weed control</subject><subject>weed escape</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0890-037X</issn><issn>1550-2740</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsnv0DAk8jWJJvd7B6l-A8KXiroKWSzE0zZJjVJLf32ZlnPXmaYmR_vMQ-ha0oWlFBxf4C0YISxRVWfoBmtKlIwwckpmpGmJQUpxcc5uohxQwitGSMz9Ln-Amy3O6UT9gbDADoFr_fJeodTAJW24FLEeToA9Fh7l-8DVq6fFnEsP1Z1drDpiK3D0R87UO4SnRk1RLj663P0_vS4Xr4Uq7fn1-XDquhYzVLBm05AabhifatMr7QuRdWKvu1azkpCjOG1brihpeZdZWhjKOg2fwOcVFz15RzdTLq74L_3EJPc-H1w2VIywWqa5UqRqbuJ0sHHGMDIXbBbFY6SEjlmJ3N2csxOVnWmbye6s947-Jf9BYbscFI</recordid><startdate>20220801</startdate><enddate>20220801</enddate><creator>Schreier, Haylee</creator><creator>Bish, Mandy</creator><creator>Bradley, Kevin W.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9373-326X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-420X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3189-8784</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220801</creationdate><title>The impact of electrocution treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean</title><author>Schreier, Haylee ; Bish, Mandy ; Bradley, Kevin W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b262t-48b7e3f4a2d9afdacc37597d9b942300ff46c84f13c4b5f18f1ec9890e4054ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agricultural equipment</topic><topic>Canopies</topic><topic>Correlation coefficient</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Crop production</topic><topic>Crop yield</topic><topic>Crops</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>Electricity</topic><topic>Electrocutions</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Field tests</topic><topic>Flowering</topic><topic>Herbicides</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>mechanical control</topic><topic>Moisture effects</topic><topic>Plant growth</topic><topic>Plants (botany)</topic><topic>Pollination</topic><topic>Seed banks</topic><topic>Seed set</topic><topic>Seeds</topic><topic>Soybeans</topic><topic>Surfactants</topic><topic>Viability</topic><topic>Visual observation</topic><topic>Weed control</topic><topic>weed escape</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schreier, Haylee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bish, Mandy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradley, Kevin W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schreier, Haylee</au><au>Bish, Mandy</au><au>Bradley, Kevin W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The impact of electrocution treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean</atitle><jtitle>Weed technology</jtitle><stitle>Weed Technol</stitle><date>2022-08-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>481</spage><epage>489</epage><pages>481-489</pages><issn>0890-037X</issn><eissn>1550-2740</eissn><abstract>Field experiments were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to determine the effectiveness of electrocution on several weeds commonly encountered in Missouri soybean production using an implement known as The Weed Zapper™. In the first study, the effectiveness of electrocution on waterhemp, cocklebur, giant and common ragweed, horseweed, giant and yellow foxtail, and barnyardgrass was determined. Electrocution was applied when plants reached average heights and/or growth stages of 30 cm, 60 cm, flowering, pollination, and seed set. Electrocution was applied once or twice, at two different tractor speeds. Electrocution was more effective at the later plant growth stages. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that control of weed species was most related to plant height and amount of plant moisture at the time of electrocution. When plants contained seed at the time of electrocution, viability was reduced from 54% to 80% among the species evaluated. A second study determined the effect of electrocution on late-season waterhemp plants, and also soybean injury and yield. Electrocution timings took place throughout reproductive soybean growth stages. The control of waterhemp escapes within the soybean trial ranged from 51% to 97%. Yield of soybean electrocuted at the R4 and R6 growth stages was similar to that of the nontreated control, but soybean yield was reduced by 11% to 26% following electrocution at all other timings. However, the visual injury and yield loss observed in these experiments likely represents a worst-case scenario because growers who maintain a clear height differential between waterhemp and the soybean canopy would not need to maintain contact with the soybean canopy. Overall, results from these experiments indicate that electrocution as part of an integrated weed-management program could eliminate late-season herbicide-resistant weed escapes in soybean, and reduce the number and viability of weed seed that return to the soil seedbank. Nomenclature: Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.; common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L.; common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.; giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm.; giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L.; horseweed, Erigeron canadensis L.; yellow foxtail, Setaria pumila Poir.; waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/wet.2022.56</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9373-326X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-420X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3189-8784</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0890-037X
ispartof Weed technology, 2022-08, Vol.36 (4), p.481-489
issn 0890-037X
1550-2740
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2726137537
source Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Agricultural equipment
Canopies
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficients
Costs
Crop production
Crop yield
Crops
Effectiveness
Electricity
Electrocutions
Experiments
Field tests
Flowering
Herbicides
Laboratories
mechanical control
Moisture effects
Plant growth
Plants (botany)
Pollination
Seed banks
Seed set
Seeds
Soybeans
Surfactants
Viability
Visual observation
Weed control
weed escape
Weeds
title The impact of electrocution treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T01%3A29%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20impact%20of%20electrocution%20treatments%20on%20weed%20control%20and%20weed%20seed%20viability%20in%20soybean&rft.jtitle=Weed%20technology&rft.au=Schreier,%20Haylee&rft.date=2022-08-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=481&rft.epage=489&rft.pages=481-489&rft.issn=0890-037X&rft.eissn=1550-2740&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/wet.2022.56&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2726137537%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2726137537&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true