Paper · 2018 · Weed Technology

Survey of Nebraska Farmers’ Adoption of Dicamba-Resistant Soybean Technology and Dicamba Off-Target Movement

Rodrigo Werle; Maxwel C. Oliveira; Amit J. Jhala; et al.

4
claims
4
verbatim quotes
62
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract In 2017, dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean was commercially available to farmers in the United States. In August and September of 2017, a survey of 312 farmers from 60 Nebraska soybean-producing counties was conducted during extension field days or online. The objective of this survey was to understand farmers’ adoption and perceptions regarding DR soybean technology in Nebraska. The survey contained 16 questions and was divided in three parts: (1) demographics, (2) dicamba application in DR soybean, and (3) dicamba off-target injury to sensitive soybean cultivars. According to the results, 20% of soybean hectares represented by the survey were planted to DR soybean in 2017, and this number would probably double in 2018. Sixty-five percent of survey respondents own a sprayer and apply their own herbicide programs. More than 90% of respondents who adopted DR soybean technology reported significant improvement in weed control. Nearly 60% of respondents used dicamba alone or glyphosate plus dicamba for POST weed control in DR soybean; the remaining 40% added an additional herbicide with an alternative site of action (SOA) to the POST application. All survey respondents used one of the approved dicamba formulations for application in DR soybean. Survey results indicated that late POST dicamba applications (after late June) were more likely to result in injury to non-DR soybean compared to early POST applications (e.g., May and early June) in 2017. According to respondents, off-target dicamba movement resulted both from applications in DR soybean and dicamba-based herbicides applied in corn. Although 51% of respondents noted dicamba injury on non-DR soybean, 7% of those who noted injury filed an official complaint with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Although DR soybean technology allowed farmers to achieve better weed control during 2017 than previous growing seasons, it is apparent that off-target movement and resistance management must be addressed to maintain the viability and effectiveness of the technology in the future.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 20% of soybean hectares represented by the survey were planted to dicamba-resistant soybean in 2017.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe1
Material
DR soybeane1
Outcome
soybean hectarese1
Value
20%e1

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“20% of soybean hectares represented by the survey were planted to DR soybean in 2017”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–688 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More than 90% of respondents who adopted DR soybean technology reported significant improvement in weed control.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe1
Outcome
improvement in weed controle1
Value
More than 90%e1

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“More than 90% of respondents who adopted DR soybean technology reported significant improvement in weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 832–943 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late POST dicamba applications were more likely to injure non-DR soybean than early POST applications in 2017.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe1
Treatment
late POST dicamba applicationse1
Outcome
injury to non-DR soybeane1
Direction
more likelye1
Comparator
early POST applicationse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“late POST dicamba applications (after late June) were more likely to result in injury to non-DR soybean compared to early POST applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1298–1437 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

51% of respondents noted dicamba injury on non-DR soybean.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe1
Outcome
dicamba injury on non-DR soybeane1
Value
51%e1

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“51% of respondents noted dicamba injury on non-DR soybean”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1629–1686 · show in text ↑

dicamba · crop injury · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ

37 papers: 8 positive, 29 negative or no effect

28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.