Weed management update for 2021

[Music] good morning and welcome to the crops tv presentation for this week the topic is integrated weed management update for 2021 so i am prashanth jha i'm the extension weed specialist with the department of agronomy at iowa state university extension and outreach today i'm going to uh give you uh some a picture of the new herbicide products for 2021 we have us i have a two-page document right here uh we have a pretty uh good many product new herbicide products for 2021 that is uh that will be available for corn and soybean growers impact core from mvac which is again a herbicide group 27 and 15 combination for cone as a post product we have senet another product from mvac with which has topramison and glyphosate uh should be applied as a post application uh for in liberty lincoln not in in other corn because we have glyphosate in the mix perpetua from valent which is pyroxyl sulfonate and flumiclorac with the combination of group 15 and 14 available both for corn and soybean as a pre-product reviton which is from helm aggro typhinosil it is also a ppo kind of ppo inhibitor group 14 available for corn and soybean as a pre-plant burned down only product so kyber which is a new product from cotiva which is a combination of flumioxazine metrobusiness and paroxys sulfone again multiple sites of action with group 14 group 5 and group 15 available for soybean market applied as a pre-emergence product tough ivc you might have heard about that last year also from belgium crop protection active ingredient party date group six a new product available as for post emergence in corn coming to some of the other new products which is which are going to be be available for 2021 is antares complete which is from helena and it is metrobusiness in sulfentrazone and s molecular again a combination of group 5 14 and 15 available for soybean as a pre-emergence product empire of empires which is again from helena chemicals with the two pyrulate and metallochlor group 27 and group 15 available as a as a pre and e-post application for corn in 2021 cinjina has some of the new products coming into the pipeline which are more based on acuron as you all are aware of this acuron which is a bicycle pyron based uh herbicide product so they have acuron xr acuron flex cxr uh which is again uh supposed to be or uh launched in 2021 it is currently not uh registered but it's supposed to be uh coming uh some sometime in 2021 as a pre-emergence product again multiple site three to four herbicide sites of action applied as a pre-emergence product in corn we have zone defense from helm aggro which is again a combination of sulfenerosome and flumioxygen both are the ppo inhibitors group 14 available for soybean as a pre or a pre plant burned on products again so that's exciting that we have some new herbicide products uh coming for the 2021 soybean growing season and corn growing season as well majority of these products if you whether you talk about pre-emergence or post-emergence they are pre-mixes they are multiple sites of action herbicides that's because that's where we are going when we are talking about managing herbicide resistant weeds so uh three three major triple stacked herbicide tolerant traits for for weed control especially for controlling how to control weeds like water hemp in in in soybean for 2021 we will have this extended flax soybeans again that has been approved by epa and and is registered in and will be available as a triple stack technology for soybeans with roundup powermax extended max which is the camber only particularly fascinating application we all know about labor dealing gt27 which again gives us the flexibility to apply glyphosate and liberty in the same tank i would like to emphasize that the elite 27 which is the hppd group 27 herbicide to be that is not currently registered it is still pending registration it got limited registration in some states and with limited counties but not in iowa yet so you know analyst e3 soybeans we are going to see an increase in the english e3 soybeans in in iowa uh in the 2021 growing season of course in line with the extent flex soybeans again nhd3 soybeans is triple stacked with glyphosate and list one in liberty i would like to mention here that analyst and liberty should be applied as a tank mix for control of these troublesome weeds like like water hemp when we talk about stand alone we have based on our research analyst one early bodies as a standalone is is not very effective you will see a lot of regrowth and potential failures but when they are applied as a tank mix as analyst and liberty tank mix they definitely are more effective for controlling waterhemp so regardless of these triple stacked or multiple stacked herbicide tolerant trade technologies that we have in the market to fight herbicide listing weeds we definitely need to to be careful in terms of using these new technologies for future use and and the recommendation is use of layered shoulders dual herbicide programs with we definitely need to have that with multiple sites of action or herbicide groups that will serve as a foundation for preserving the utility and sustainability of these new trade technologies going into the future now i'm going to talk about the uh uh survey of of waterhemp populations that we did into in the fall of 2019 and we continued uh some of that also in 2020 we collected close to 250 populations from corn and soybean fields across iowa and some of these populations also came from grower fields because lack of control from some of these products used in corn and soybean so in this slide you see the i'm showing you the results for the 70 out of those 250 populations that we have screened so far those those herbicides on the x-axis or the group numbers were the herbicide group 2 which was pursued and other group 2 herbicides which we all are aware of group 5 atrazine group 9 which is glyphosate group 14 the ppo herbicides like flexstar or cobra or ultra blazer group 27 is the hvpd chemistry which is again well known herbicides like kalisto impact and etc in that particular group so on the y-axis we see the percent of the populations out of those 70 populations we saw based on our screening uh the for group two five and nine we had more than 95 percent of those populations right now are resistant to those three groups so and and uh those yellow bar orange bars represents the populations that were tested at the forex rate forex rate means that they were applied at four times the field use rate so we we are pretty confident that those are resistance that's why you see the term confirmed resistance so pretty high frequency for those uh glyphosate as you can see here but again for group 14 and group 27 at the forex rate we are seeing that only less than 20 of the populations or out of those 70 populations are resistant so still we are dealing with a low frequency there but again it is concerned but when when you are doing it at a 2x rate for example or a fully used rate of course you would be expecting somewhere in the range of 20 to 30 of those populations being resistant to ppo and hppd herbicides on the right hand side we see the yellow bars with the herbicide group floor and we tested some of the survivors that produce seed from in the field we tested those at the field use rate 1x rate in the greenhouse in our screening program and for uh for these two group 4 herbicides 240 and the camber and less than 10 i would say of those populations of all those 70 populations less than 10 percent were uh survived the field use rate of 240 in the camber which is again a concern we we definitely on on the right hand side you see the picture uh of those 240 and decambus survivors at the 1x rate and they were they did produce seed which is which is a big concern so we are grow we are getting this next generation screening for of those populations for 240 in the camber so that we can confirm whether they are truly resistant or not and and if they are resistant what is the level of resistant resistance they have developed against 240 in the camber so right now we are in the phase where we are seeing more and more multiple herbicide western water in iowa and across the midwest and again for iowa based on our screening of those populations uh two-way and three-way resistance more than 95 of those populations or more than 90 percent of those populations we are seeing two to three-way resistance close to 20 percent of the populations they had four wheel resistance uh which means they were resistant to the group twos group five veterazine glyphosate group 14 or group 27 which is the ppo and hppd herbicides group 5 5-way resistance we also are still working on this but again there was uh a few populations i would say one to two percent of the populations that also have had survivors from group two so that adds to that uh five-way resistant water amp uh populations again we need to be more proactive in terms of uh using some of these products which are right now effective like 240 data camber and liberty because six-way resistant waterhemp has been reported in midwest with resistance to 24d reported in missouri and illinois and and for all these cases of new cases of multiple resistance we are seeing enhanced metabolism as the maze as the major mechanism conferring multiple resistance that for example group for resistance to group four fif group five atrazine 15 which is uh s metallochlor or acetochlor uh and group 27 which is which are the hppd herbicides we are seeing this metabolism based mechanism so definitely we need to be more proactive in terms of what tools we have and how best we can utilize utilize those herbicide tools and preserve the utility of those tools so at that point with limited herbicide options and understanding that no new side of actions are coming in the marketplace for the next i would say eight to ten years we definitely need to look at alternative strategies uh and and how we can integrate weed management programs in in the iowa common and soybean production systems so so from this point onwards i'm going to talk about some of those uh i will show you some of the results and also talk about some of the research that we conducted in corn and soybean and looking at some of these integrated weed management programs other than herbicides and how best we can integrate those with the existing herbicide programs so in this uh this research was started in back in 2019 in a corn soybean two-year rotation where the experimental design was a split split plot and we conduct we had two sites one at the isu curtis farm and one at the bruner farm the main plot was we established three different levels of water hemp seed bank to begin with in the in the corn phase of the rotation and those three levels of water hemp seed banks were were established using three different herbicide programs in liberty link gd27 corn that was grown in the first year in 2019 so looking at the table here our herbicide programs were marginal which is mhp which is which was dual pre plus roundup post and again it was just one effective side of action because roundup was there to kill other existing weeds but it was not effective on water hemp because water water ramp at both the sites were resistant to glyphosate or roundup the second was aggressive herbicide program where we had three side of action of herbicides applied as pre and post sharpen plus zero pre followed by liberty plus dual post and then the third treatment was the aggressive herbicide program plus weed seed removal at harvest which is again the three side of action same as the hp but we hadn't removed any survivors of water in those plots to prevent any seed bank inputs so again from this slide onwards i will use this these terms mhp which is the marginal herbicide program and ahp which is the aggressive herbicide program so what was the effect of the cone herbicide programs in 2019 again the results uh were pretty evident here as you can see on the picture 2019 corn with one more side of action poor control of water ram versus pretty good control of water ramp on the right hand side with the ahp which is the aggressive herbicide program with three side of actions so with these programs we were definitely achieving were able to achieve our goal of of starting with three levels of seed bank inputs in the co at the end of the ground corn growing season which you see on the right hand side on the graph is the water hemp seed in thousands per meter square so with the marginal herbicide program in those plots uh the water implants that survived the with the marginal herbicide program they produced close to 90 000 seeds compared to the aggressive herbicide program you see a pretty rapid decline in the seed bank inputs at the end of this of the corn season and those plant and those plots or that particular treatment did uh produce close to 10 000 seeds so drastic reduction there and of course in the third treatment we prevented any uh seed going into the soil seed bank but definitely there was a residual seed soil seed bank of waterhemp in that site so uh i we did not expect that even by removing all the seeds in that particular third treatment we did not completely eliminate eliminate the water hemp salt seed bank going to the soybean phase of the rotation in 2020 our we within that aggressive and marginal herbicide programs they were further split into into dry cover crop versus no cover crop the rye was a variety l bond was planted at 55 pounds per acre on october 10 of 2019 or just after the corn harvest and the rye was terminated at emphasis as you can see in the picture here the it was it was planted green the soybean was planted green on the rye and the rye was terminated on the same date of soybean planting on may 15 of 2020 with glyphosate our split split plot factor within that ryan nora cover crop we further divided into 15-inch soybean rows versus 13 soybean rows so in the soybean phase of the rotation we intentionally did not use a effective herbicide program we used a marginal herbicide program because we really wanted to see what the effect of the previous year's corner beside program is and what's the effect of this cereal dry cover crop and and 15 inch or narrow rose soybean has on the waterhemp seed bank so this is the main effect of the cdl drive terminated at the time of soybean planting and again the biomass was 4 200 pounds per acre at the time of termination so greater the biomass the greater the levels of weed separation and we got to understand that for practical weed management especially for some of these late emerging weed species like water amp we definitely need to have a higher amount of biomass at the time of termination of cdl dry so planting green definitely makes sense so on the left hand side you see the no cover crop plots in between this soybean rose a lot of water and pressure versus very less water and pressure on this in the ceiling right cover crop plots you see the amount of cellular residue in between those rows so definitely the celia rye had a complementary effect the first one is reduced water emergence and density and reduced growth which means reduced size and biomass at the time of post application looking at the effect of narrow row soybeans on on that glyphosate and water hemp control or management you see a 13 rows on your left versus 15 inch rows again with the early canopy development in 15 inch rows definitely helped in terms of of reducing the density and emergence of water amp again a complementary strategy using narrow rows to reduce the watt shrimp emergence density and size at the time of post application so since the interaction of these uh previous year's herbicide program the cereal dry and narrow row spacing was significant we are looking here in this particular slide we are looking at the effect of corn herbicide programs cover crop and soybean row spacing and water emergence in the second year of the rotation which was in the soybean phase that's why i have listed the soybean treatments uh from top to bottom is from t1 to t12 is the level of all those uh programs uh start which which uh i would say the level of weed management uh diversity or the level of intent or the intensity of weed management so moving from t1 to t12 basically we are increasing the weed management diversity or intensity of weed management by incorporating cover crop and narrower soybean within those corn beside program plots so as you can see in the right hand side the results are pretty evident this is the proportion of emerged water ramp during the soybean growing season which we monitored from may up until august which is the main emergence period for water hemp in iowa uh soybean production so coming from t1 which is the light uh green color as you see on the top what and the t12 is the highest level of diversity which is the aggressive plus weed seed removal in the corn phase followed by cellular dye and 15 in soybean in the in the soybean phase so as you can see that we saw as we are increasing the intensity of weed management and and incorporating these cover crops and narrow row soybean with the aggressive herbicide program last year definitely we are reducing by 90 of the water emergence in soybean in the following year this is just a aerial image of the field plots at the isu bruner farm in uh in 2020 uh you can see on the left hand side is the no cover crop with uh 13 soybean versus cover no cover crop and 15 in soybeans so basically we the left two top and bottom we are looking at uh you can easily see what effect that 15 inch soybean has in terms of reducing the water ramping between those soybean rose as compared to the white rose soybean coming to the right hand side we see this the rye cover crop grown in 13 soybean versus rye cover crop grown in 15 in soybean and again integrating those systems those cultural strategies of rye cover crop and 15-inch rose spacing we are definitely at the bottom you can see how clear the those plots are even with minimal herbicide use in the soybean phase we are still seeing a dramatic effect a drastic significant effect of cover crop and narrow spacing on water and pressure on those in those plots so effect effective the corn herbicide programs cover crop and soybean rose spacing on waterstream control uh not only to reduce the emergence uh uh but also here we are looking at the water and total biomass production and seed production at the end of this second year which was soybean so again going from t1 to t12 we are going from a marginal herbicide program and no cover crop 13 soybean which is our control which is the least recommended or the least diverse weed management tactic versus the most diverse weed management tactic which is the t12 we are seeing more than 90 reduction in the water and biomass uh as a as a result of that on the seed production of water implants in thousands per meter square which you see on the y axis on the right hand side graph and the weed management diversity is moving from from low to to to high diversity where we are using an aggressive herbicide program and cover crop and 15 inch we are seeing almost a steep decline almost a linear decline as we are adding each of those weed management tactics uh in in the toolbox so definitely there there was 90 reduction in the treatment t12 compared to the least effective t1 treatment in terms of water and seed production in numbers per meter square i'd like to emphasize here look at the y-axis on the right hand side on the seed production of water hemp the from zero to two hundred thousand seeds so under marginal condition uh herbicide program now if you go back to the corn herbicide program the year one the maximum was 90 000 seats in the marginal herbicide program in the same setup set of treatment in the marginal herbicide program in the second year now we are seeing 150 to 200 000 seeds so that tells you that why it is important to manage the wheat seed bank because if you are not if we are not managing the wheat sand seed bank in the year one effectively we are going to have end up with a bigger mess and and more uh water and plants to deal with in the following year one of the important things here is as i mentioned here we do our uh our soybean herbicide program was weak because we intentionally wanted to do that to see the effect of cover crop and soybean row spacing but there were close to 10 to 15 000 seeds that were produced even with the most effective weed management diverse or the maximum level of weed management diversity with with the treatment t12 so those 15 000 seeds per meter square of water hemp is enough to cause seed bank replenishment for the subsequent growing season so definitely i've highlighted on the top as you can see an effective pre followed by post-residual programs in soybean is much needed and the major conclusions from this research is of course we did not see an adverse effect of delayed cover crop termination timing on soybean canopy growth on soybean growth canopy development and yield soybean yields were higher definitely in those plots which which had the hp aggressive herbicide program ryan reduced raw spacing soybean cover crop and narrow row soybeans again those are complementary strategies those are not standalone strategies but definitely they are complementary because they can reduce the size density uh and the number of weed seeds that are produced in one growing season so overall if you're reducing this density and size of the weed seeds you are enhancing the efficacy of the post programs and also it allows us to pro when you're using these cultural strategies it allows us a greater flexibility of application of our post herb herbicides so when we are seeing less number of uh weeds when the uh at the time of post herbicide application definitely we are reducing the herbicide exposure of those weed seedlings and reducing the selection pressure for resistance development so that's the that's the complementary strategy we get from these integrated programs of course i would like to emphasize that layered soil digital programs with multiple sites of action will still serve as the foundation of our wheat management programs in both corn and soybean phase of the rotation so even with that when we are integrating uh all these strategies together the water ramp has evolved resistance to several different herbicides multiple resistance uh it can evolve very um or it can adapt very fast to any weed management practices or control practices so definitely at the end of the growing season we are going to see probably one or two plants even surviving per meter square which on a per acre basis is going to be a pretty significant number so what we can do at the time of harvest as a late weed seed bank management tactic to capture those weed seeds at harvest so this here uh slide here shows uh what do you what you'd expect from combine the weed seeds i would like to emphasize that or in the chaff fraction of this chaff and straw that comes out of your chopper at the rear of the combine so if you put a baffle in between then you can separate the straw which is the which is the brown color material from the chaff which is the blue colored material which is coming out of the combine so with that baffle you can separate the straw and chaff and all your chaff weed seeds are within the chaff so if you can collect those chaff with containing the weed seeds and destroy them i think we are going to to definitely have a strong impact in the amount of infestation in the following growing seasons so we we started investigating back in 2019 and this is my graduate student every bennett looking at some of these harvest weed seed control non-conventional strategies and uh as a non-chemical strategy that we can integrate in our soybean concept conserving rotations so every looked at the water and seed retention again in 2020 as you can see here even across the different harvest states even with the with why this harvest weed seed control technologies are going to work for for big weeds like water ramp and palmer eminent is because they still retain um 80 to up to 95 percent of the seeds depending on the time of of the harvest of soybeans so even with the late harvest as you can see on october 1 those water and plants are still retaining close to 80 percent of the seeds which can be captured and destroyed so we are going to i'm going to talk about two technologies that we are uh from a harvest weed seed control technology that we are investigating in iowa uh soybean production one is the chaff lining and second is the seed destructor first i'm going to talk about the chaff lining concept so we collected chaff at the time of soybean harvest in 2019 and we calculated the chaff to grain ratio of one is to six which means one ton of soybean per six tons of soybean ones turnips of chaff sorry per six tons of soybean grain so greater the soybean yield greater the amount of chaff you're going to get so based on that six is to one ratio six tons of soybean and one ton of chaff we calculated the different amount of chaps we we can get from from under different soybean ill scenarios 40 bushels 50 and 60 percent soybean looking at the uh emerge what is the effect of that soybean chaff on on water mp margins on on the right hand side you see some of the pictures we started with the greenhouse screening where we collected the soybean chaff that was collected in the field and we we put those chaff in in trays uh on top of the bare soil so first uh one in the picture on the on on the right hand side you see no chap you see a lot of water and emerging there and each of these trees has 100 water ramps thousand water ram seeds mixed put on the bare soil or mixed with the chaff the second treatment is the 354 pounds per acre of the soybean chaff which is equivalent to 40 soybean 443 pounds per acre is equivalent to 50 bushel soybean and the 530 pound per acre is equivalent to 60 soybean so on the y-axis you see the proportion of immersed water during and the x-axis is the duration of emergence which was 45 days after planting the or after after starting the experiment the top line is the no chaff the red line as you see as the amount of chaff increases we see a drastic reduction in the emergence or cumulative emergence of water hemp and of course with the highest amount of chaff which was from the 60 bushel soybean which is the green line you see there was a 90 more than 90 reduction in the cumulative emergence of waterhemp compared to the no chaff similarly we saw this effect not only in waterhemp but also in other weed species like velvet leaf there was a separation there as well as you can see in the in the in this in the slide on the in the graph on the left as well as the pictures with and without chaff velvet leaf emergence separation as a result of the chaff also for some of the grassy species the most troublesome being the giant foxtel in in iowa which we definitely as compared to the red line which is no chaff and the uh green line which is the traffic equivalent to 60 soybean we see close to 65 to 70 reduction of course it was less as compared to to what we what we saw for water amp and that's what we we are trying to see in this particular slide is the effect of varying rates of the soybean chaff and those rates are based on the soybean yield potential starting from 40 up to 70 percent soybean we are seeing that uh the water hemp is the most sensitive species with as you uh with as you can see in the graph with with the bottom line greater reduction as a result of the chaff as compared to velvet leaf and giant ragweed so smaller the weed size the greater the level of suppression you'd expect because of the burial of those weed seeds in the chaff and also because of other mechanisms which we are going to investigate this is the not only we saw a reduction in the emergence but the soybean chaff can also reduce the size and growth of those immersed weeds which is again a complimentary role if you remember that when i talked about narrow row soybean and cover crops their complementary role was was to reduce also the size and growth at the time of post application so that's what we are also achieving from soybean chaff so it's a complementary strategy as well looking at the velvet leaf on the left hand side the first two is the bare soil you can see the velvet leaf and the chaff in chaff those plants that have emerged are much smaller coming to the right hand side which is green foxtail comparison between bare soil and chaff in the chaff again those plants are weaker and much smaller as compared to when they are growing in bare soil in the absence of the chaff so we start now i'm going to talk about the study when we took this study into the field and using the uh trying to evaluate this concept of chaff lining we started these field experiments this year in 2020 i would like to mention here that chaff lining as a harvest weed seed control has been widely adopted by growers in in western australia because they are fighting for with this herbicide eastern which species especially ryegrass which is resistant to probably nine or ten different sites of action of herbicides so it's even much more intensified as compared to what we see here with palmer and waterhemp in the u.s chaff lining is is one of the most inexpensive method of harvest weed seed control and we do have at isu we got this fall these chaff lining shoots and the kit from a company based in australia and it including the shipping cost and the coupon cost the total was in the range of three to thirty five hundred to five thousand dollars so it is relatively inexpensive when you compare it with some of the other harvest weed seed control uh technologies like herrington seed destructor or or any other seed destructors which are pretty costly it was easy to install for us and we installed it in a john deere uh s series six six six sixty combine and and you can see that that's the that's the chute and at the bottom you see that's where the all this the chaff and the weed seeds are coming uh as a in a narrow band right at the center of the combine and i'm going to show you that in a minute so let's look at this video where we had this shoot the chaff lining shoot installed behind behind the john deere s660 combine and you can see this shoot is right at the center of that combine trying to divert all uh or concentrate all the weed seeds within the chaff in a narrow band at the center of the combine [Music] this was tested across multiple locations here in central iowa this year this was the first testing of this chaff lining installed in a john deere combine first time in the united states so these are some of the field studies and again this is one of the grower field you see the water infestation at the time of harvest but a pretty good infestation of water in that particular field where we had this chaff lining experiment going on and you see the chaff how the weed seeds how this chaff line is the narrow band within that 35 foot header width that was the header width of the combine and we are concentrating all the weed seeds within that narrow band at the center of the that 35 feet so what we are achieving with this is we are preventing the spread of herbicide resistant weed seeds across the entire field so instead of the 35 feet wide 35 feet width we are now concentrating all the weed seeds within that as uh 18 to 20 inch band which is six to eight inches deep at the right at the center of that 35 foot one pass combine so definitely on a per acre basis we made the calculations we we found that we are reducing the spread of rest and weed seeds by 20 fold by doing this so we collected some samples as you can see my graduate students every bennett and rom and others here trying to evaluate the number of weed seeds that we captured in the tray versus what comes out of the chaff out of the straw faction coming out of the chopper had a loss of the wheat seeds at the time of soybean harvest as well so this is what the data suggests and more than 95 percent of the weed seeds that we have captured this fall in those chaff lines uh i mean have been captured in those shaft lines uh we are seeing like within one square feet we are we we are getting close to more than eight thousand water seeds so that's a drastic amount of weed seeds that we are concentrating within within the narrow bands much easier to manage and preventing the spread so the efficacy of of the system was 95 in capturing those weed seeds we are putting down some we have put some wheat seed packets both inside and outside the chaff lines this fall to evaluate the efficacy of those of this system the chaff lining on water and seeds survival as a result of predation and decay in in those chaps versus on bare soil and also we are going to monitor the emergence of water hemp and other wheat species in the subsequent growing season which is going to be corn next year planted in in those fields so the main question that we have we don't know the answer because this is the first time this research has been conducted here in the u.s as how we are going to manage those immersed weed seedlings in these chaff lines so we are thinking about shielded sprayer applications as well as how the herbicide applications the pre-emergence programs post-emergence and the pre-followed by post programs in corn is going to interact with those chaff lines with ultimate goal to prevent any seed production from immersed weeds species in those shaft line definitely that is going to be our main goal the next technology i'm going to talk about is the harvest weed seed control technology and again this work was funded by usda area-wide project on the left-hand side you see the combine on the right-hand side you see the combine with the wheat seed destructor and that's the john deere s630 combine which we have which belongs to a grower here in central iowa in gilbert central iowa where this unit ready cop seed destructor unit was installed you can see at the bottom of that unit is where those high impact mills are which are basically pulverizing the weed seeds uh as it as the chaff passes through that high impact mill so experiments were conducted uh in this year in the fall after 2020 this is the first testing of the reddicop model in u.s

uh you might have heard about hair intensity destructor and seed terminator tested in missouri arkansas and illinois but this is the uh this radical destructor is going to be available for growers uh as a part of as an add-on with the john deere combine so john deere has a contract with this company ready cop which is based in saskatoon canada uh so we were the first time we tested this uh in the fall 2020 of this year in central in several different fields in central iowa at the time of soybean harvest and also at the isu research farms so i'm going to show you the uh the a video of how this system works so this is the s680 john deere combine as you can see here and at the bottom at the rear of the combine you see the all the chaff and the weed seeds getting like a powder coming out of the back of the combine from that unit and from the top also from the chopper you are still getting the straw but all the weed seeds are getting pulverized from the bottom a lot of dust is scenario right there but it does work definitely so we uh before we ran this seed destructor unit we also sam we were sampling for the header loss of the weed seeds so that as the combine passes through and also looking at the thresher loss and and collecting the weeds uh seeds which were in the chaff coming out of the sea destructor unit to test that efficacy and we found out uh just got the results uh uh this week that it was pretty effective in in pulverizing the small one to two millimeter water hem seeds almost like 99 percent efficacy those seeds were rendered non-viable it was almost looked like a powder and we are going to do some further evaluations to understand the efficacy on other other different weed species in our concept in production system so overall what we are achieving we are achieving uh definitely these are long-term benefits there are long-term benefits of this harvested weed seed control non-conventional strategies and this is an excellent uh data here from western australia looking at annual rye grass in plants per meter square density over it over a period from 2001 to 2016 so over a 15 year period the green line represents herbicide which is most likely glyphosate plus a harvest hwsc which represents harvest weed seed control which in this case was chaff lining because it was widely adopted by the growers in western australia so what do you see here the red line is is just the herbicide program just the glove who said for example what do you see here is the the initial um six to seven years the initial decrease in the rye grass population was was because the glyphosate was effective right but after that in that you see the red line the trend is still the same pretty much in the next 10 years five to ten plants per meter square are still there however when we are integrating that herbicide with a harvest wheat seed control method like chaff lining they were able to reduce the with that integrated system the annual rye grass population was it was reduced within you can see like in 2012 2013 it almost is zero planes per meter square so definitely there is a long-term benefit of some of these integrated non-conventional strategies like harvest weed seed control technologies that have large that have large scale and definitely more implications with regards to adoption and implementation in iowa soybean production systems when we talk about preserving the utility of existing herbicide and herbicide technologies we are looking at these improved systems these integrated systems incl at several different grower fields in collaboration with iowa soybean association on farm network where we are looking at dry cover crops soybean planted in narrow versus white rose with and without seed destructor units so definitely we really want to enhance the adoption of these integrated weed management programs one of the research that we are also looking at some of this precision weed management technologies like flying drones or uavs based hyperspectral imaging so that we can uh develop prescriptive maps for herbicide resistant weeds for example water ramp in this particular soybean field as you can see here so that definitely will help us to to to either develop more effective weed management program or spot treatment applications to control those herbicide resistant wheat patches in the field so this is one of the research that we conducted earlier you can see the prescriptive map which definitely will help us to make better weed management decision in the following season i'd like to thank all my collaborators multi-state state collaborators across the midwest and the southern u.s and also these funding agencies including usd and nifa north central share united soybean board iowa soybean association and north central soybean research promotion board and also i'd like to acknowledge uh industry and thanks to thanks to multiple industry sources for providing funding for for this research we recently got a grant from usdscig program which is a close to 2.5 million grant to work on the sustainable weed management technologies in corn and soybean production in the us and also looking at precision weed management technologies with that i would like to acknowledge my entire weed science crew excellent group of graduate students alexis ryan every rom and and steven uh austin's glitch is also joining um my graduate graduate program here at iowa state and also i'd like to thank ryan and sorry damian and alex uh as the research staff for our program so these guys are tremendous the uh their work is is is definitely very significant for what what we are doing and what we can achieve in the near future in the isu weed science program with that i end my presentation and would like to entertain any questions if you have thank you you

2021-05-09 02:58

Other news