首页> 外文期刊>Weed Science >Economic Evaluation of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Control in a Winter Wheat-Fallow Rotation
【24h】

Economic Evaluation of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Control in a Winter Wheat-Fallow Rotation

机译:冬小麦小轮作田间旋旋防治的经济评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Field bindweed infests millions of hectares in the Great Plains greatly reducing productivity and value of land. The standard practice for field bindweed control is sweep tillage at 3 wk intervals combined with one or two annual 2,4-D applications during the 14 mo fallow period in a winter wheat-fallow crop rotation. This was compared to tillage and 2,4-D in conjunction with dicamba or a mixture of pi-cloram+2,4-D applied once during the first October of the first 14 mo fallow period. Also, three no-tillage systems were included using glyphosate+2,4-D at monthly intervals. Two of the treatments were supplemented with dicamba, or pi-cloram+2,4-D as in the sweep tillage system. All treatments controlled field bindweed in two fallow periods and two winter wheat crops, and increased winter wheat yields to about twice the control. Sweep tillage at 3 wk intervals combined with 2,4-D resulted in $36 ha~(-1) profit for an owner-operator compared to $15 ha~(-1) loss with no herbicide or tillage treatment. On average no-tillage lost $35 ha~(-1). Other treatments, although controlling field bindweed, lost from 35 to $186 ha~(-1). To determine if long-term benefit after control was achieved, average yields for the area were used to calculate profits using normal farming practices. Profits were 136, 78, and $-50 ha~(-1), respectively, for sweep tillage and 2,4-D, no-tillage, and the untreated check. In a standard 33:67 owner-tenant rental, profits to the owner for the control period were 90, -33, and $43 ha~(-1), respectively for tillage and 2,4-D, no-tillage, and untreated check. The tenant lost from $24 to 69 ha~(-1) for the three systems indicating owners must modify rental agreements during a field bindweed control program.
机译:野草在大平原上侵染了数百万公顷的土地,大大降低了土地的生产力和价值。控制田间杂草的标准做法是,在冬小麦休耕轮作休耕期的14个月休耕期中,每3周间隔进行一次扫耕并结合一年或两次的2,4-D施用。这与在第一个14个月休耕期的10月的第一个10月一次施用麦草畏和2,4-D与麦草畏或pi-cloram + 2,4-D的混合物相比较。此外,还包括三个免耕系统,每个月使用草甘膦+ 2,4-D。如在耕作耕作系统中,其中两种处理均补充了麦草畏或pi-cloram + 2,4-D。所有处理都在两个休耕期和两个冬小麦作物上控制了田间杂草,并使冬小麦单产提高至对照的两倍。每隔3周进行一次耕作,加上2,4-D,所有者/经营者获得了$ 36 ha〜(-1)的利润,而没有使用除草剂或耕作则损失了$ 15 ha〜(-1)。免耕平均损失$ 35公顷〜(-1)。其他处理方法虽然控制田间杂草,但损失从35公顷减少到186公顷(-1)。为了确定控制后是否能实现长期利益,该地区的平均单产用于按照正常耕作方式计算利润。扫地和2,4-D,免耕和未处理支票的利润分别为136、78和$ -50 ha〜(-1)。在标准的33:67所有者-租户租金中,在控制期间内,耕种和2,4-D,免耕和未处理的所有者的利润分别为90,-33和$ 43 ha〜(-1)。校验。三个系统的租户损失从24美元减少到69公顷〜(-1),这表明所有者必须在田间旋植物防治计划期间修改租赁协议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号