Certified Crop Advisors’ Perceptions of Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Distribution, Herbicide Resistance, and Management in the Corn Belt

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Giant ragweed has been increasing as a major weed of row crops in the last 30 yr, but quantitative data regarding its pattern and mechanisms of spread in crop fields are lacking. To address this gap, we conducted a Web-based survey of certified crop advisors in the U.S. Corn Belt and Ontario, Canada. Participants were asked questions regarding giant ragweed and crop production practices for the county of their choice. Responses were mapped and correlation analyses were conducted among the responses to determine factors associated with giant ragweed populations. Respondents rated giant ragweed as the most or one of the most difficult weeds to manage in 45% of 421 U.S. counties responding, and 57% of responding counties reported giant ragweed populations with herbicide resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibitors, glyphosate, or both herbicides. Results suggest that giant ragweed is increasing in crop fields outward from the east-central U.S. Corn Belt in most directions. Crop production practices associated with giant ragweed populations included minimum tillage, continuous soybean, and multiple-application herbicide programs; ecological factors included giant ragweed presence in noncrop edge habitats, early and prolonged emergence, and presence of the seed-burying common earthworm in crop fields. Managing giant ragweed in noncrop areas could reduce giant ragweed migration from noncrop habitats into crop fields and slow its spread. Where giant ragweed is already established in crop fields, including a more diverse combination of crop species, tillage practices, and herbicide sites of action will be critical to reduce populations, disrupt emergence patterns, and select against herbicide-resistant giant ragweed genotypes. Incorporation of a cereal grain into the crop rotation may help suppress early giant ragweed emergence and provide chemical or mechanical control options for late-emerging giant ragweed.

Related collections

Most cited references 37

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prevalences of positive skin test responses to 10 common allergens in the US population: results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Samuel Arbes Jr., Peter Gergen, Leslie Elliott … (2005)

Allergy skin tests were administered in the second and third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES II and III) conducted in the United States from 1976 through 1980 and 1988 through 1994, respectively. This study estimated positive skin test response rates in NHANES III and identified predictors of one or more positive test responses. Comparisons with NHANES II were also made. In NHANES III, 10 allergens and 2 controls were tested in all subjects aged 6 to 19 years and a random half-sample of subjects aged 20 to 59 years. A wheal-based definition of a positive test response was used. In NHANES III, 54.3% of the population had positive test responses to 1 or more allergens. Prevalences were 27.5% for dust mite, 26.9% for perennial rye, 26.2% for short ragweed, 26.1% for German cockroach, 18.1% for Bermuda grass, 17.0% for cat, 15.2% for Russian thistle, 13.2% for white oak, 12.9% for Alternaria alternata, and 8.6% for peanut. Among those with positive test responses, the median number of positive responses was 3.0. Adjusted odds of a positive test response were higher for the following variables: age of 20 to 29 years, male sex, minority race, western region, old homes, and lower serum cotinine levels. For the 6 allergens common to NHANES II and III, prevalences were 2.1 to 5.5 times higher in NHANES III. The majority of the US population represented in NHANES III was sensitized to 1 or more allergens. Whether the higher prevalences observed in NHANES III reflect true changes in prevalence or methodological differences between the surveys cannot be determined with certainty.