Field evaluation of a decision support system for herbicidal control of Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana in winter wheat

• Published in: Weed research 2010-02, Vol.50 (1), p.83-88
• Main Authors: GONZALEZ-ANDUJAR, J.L, FERNANDEZ-QUINTANILLA, C, BASTIDA, F, CALVO, R, GONZALEZ-DIAZ, L, IZQUIERDO, J, LEZAUN, J.A, PEREA, F, SANCHEZ DEL ARCO, M.J, URBANO, J.M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; Avena sterilis; bioeconomic model; bioeconomic models; Biological and medical sciences; Chemical control; Control systems; Crop yield; Decision support systems; environment; Farmers; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; herbicide rate; Herbicides; Parasitic plants. Weeds; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection; Statistical analysis; sterile oat; Triticum aestivum; Weed control; Weeds; Wheat; Winter wheat
• ISSN: 0043-1737; 1365-3180
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00744.x

Two field studies were conducted in Central and Northern Spain over a total of five seasons to assess the usefulness of a decision support system (AVENA-PC) from agronomic, economic and environmental points of view on herbicidal control of Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana in winter wheat. The control treatments evaluated were: (i) AVENA-PC-based recommendations, (ii) full herbicide dose (standard farmer practice), (iii) half herbicide dose and (iv) no herbicide. The herbicide rates used in the AVENA-PC treatment averaged 65% and 30% lower than the full and half dose treatments respectively. AVENA-PC implementation controlled A. ludoviciana with similar efficacy as standard herbicide treatments. Nevertheless, it did support a reduction in relation to the non-herbicide treatment. Yields obtained with AVENA-PC were, in general, not statistically different to those obtained with herbicide treatments and were on average 69% higher than those in the no herbicide application strategy. Comparing AVENA-PC economic performance with the other treatments there were, in general, no significant statistical differences in Central Spain. In Northern Spain, all herbicide treatments had similar net returns, with there being no statistical differences between AVENA-PC and the herbicide treatments. However, there were differences recorded with the non-herbicide treatment. The results of this research indicate that AVENA-PC, due to its flexibility, may recommend less herbicide than the standard farmer practice, providing clear environmental benefits and adequate weed control with maintained crop yield and net returns similar to standard farmer practice.