Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:33:51.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Costs of Handheld Sprayers in the Subhumid Savanna for Cogongrass Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ole K. Nielsen ,
David Chikoye  and
Jens C. Streibig
Ole K. Nielsen*
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Thorvalsensvej 40, 1879 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
David Chikoye
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Oyo Road, PMB. 5320 Ibadan, Nigeria
Jens C. Streibig
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: okn@kvl.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cogongrass continues to be one of the most invasive weeds in the subhumid savanna. Herbicide application expenses depend on equipment costs, costs of water transport for spraying, and chemical costs. In three on-farm experiments on land heavily infested with cogongrass, the effectiveness of a knapsack sprayer (KS), a very low volume sprayer (VLV), and a rope wick (RW) applicator was tested at Ijaye, Nigeria, from 2000 to 2001. The sprayers differed in application method, price, and carrier volume required. The dose–response curves for the three applicators were identical in all parameters except at very high doses for the RW. Consequently, there were no apparent differences in glyphosate effectiveness, even when it was applied with different equipment and different carrier volumes. However, even at very high doses, the RW was not as efficient as was the KS and VLV. Actual biomass reduction of cogongrass was greater with the KS and VLV. Even though the KS and VLV generally gave better control levels than the RW, the latter is more user-friendly because it does not require protective masks, which are often unavailable in sub-Saharan Africa. In a situation with labor scarcity, weeding with the RW was cheaper than hand weeding with hoes. The VLV was more economical when used on areas larger than 10 ha than was the RW. The KS was more economical than all other methods when used on areas larger than 2 ha.

Keywords

CogongrassImperata cylindrica (L.) RaeuschelWeed controlreduced dosesspray equipmentsimple technologieslow volume applicationpesticide safetyCDA, controlled droplet applicationKS, knapsack sprayerRW, rope wick applicatorVLV, very low volume sprayer
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 568 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Alimi, T. and Manyong, V. M. 2000. Partial Budget Analysis for On-farm Research. Research Guide 65. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. 53 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Weed Control Recommendations for Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Africa-Link. 113 p.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1987. Effects of application variables on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Technol. 1:14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikoye, D., Ekeleme, F., and Ambe, J. T. 1999. Survey of distribution and farmers' perceptions of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel) in cassava-based systems in West Africa. Int. J. Pest Manage. 44:1–7.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Manyong, V. M., Carsky, R., Ekeleme, F., Gbehounou, G., and Ahanchede, A. 2002. Response of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) to cover crops integrated with handweeding and chemical control in maize and cassava. Crop Prot. 21:145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groote, H., Douro-Kpindou, O-K., and Togo, T. 2002. Biological control of locusts and grasshoppers in the Dogon area: a participatory rural appraisal. in De Groote, H. ed. Lutte Biologique contre les Locustes et les Sauteriaux (LUBILOSA)-IITA, Socioeconomic Working Paper Series. Cotonou, Bénin: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Ellis-Jones, J., Power, J., Chikoye, D., Nielsen, O. K., Kormawa, P., Ibana, S., Tarawali, G., Avav, T., and Udensi, U. 2003. Scaling Up the Use of Improved Imperata Management Practices in the Sub-humid Savannah of Nigeria. Glasgow, UK: BCPC International Congress. Pp. 1011–1016.Google Scholar
Garrity, D. P., Soekardi, M., Van Noordwijk, M., De La Cruz, R., Pathak, P. S., Gunasena, H. P. M., Van So, N., Huijun, G., and Majid, N. M. 1997. The Imperata grasslands of tropical Asia: area, distribution, and topology. Agroforestry Syst. 36:3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, D. R. and Bestman, H. D. 1990. Self-limitation of herbicide mobility by phytotoxic action. Weed Sci. 38:324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivens, G. W. 1975. Studies on Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. and Eupatorium odoratum L. Oxford, UK: ARC Weed Research Organization Technical Rep. 37:1–27.Google Scholar
Ivens, G. W. 1980. Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv in West African Agriculture. Proceedings of a BIOTROP Workshop on Alang-alang . Bogor, Indonesia: BIOTROP Special Publ. 5. Pp. 149–156.Google Scholar
Jenkins, N. E. and Thomas, M. B. 1996. Effect of formulation and application method on the efficacy of aerial and submerged conidia of Metarhizium flavoviride for locust and grasshopper control. Pest Sci. 46:299–306.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R. C., Hetherington, R., Reynolds, T. L., and Marshall, G. 2000. Absorption, localisation, translocation and activity of glyphosate in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.): influence of herbicide and surfactant concentration. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:359–367.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 13:163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormawa, P., Ellis-Jones, J., Ibana, S., Chikoye, D., Schulz, S., Nielsen, O. K., Douthwaite, B., and Udensi, U. 2002. A participatory appraisal of Imperata management strategies for sustainable land use in the subhumid savanna. Conference Abstract, Deutscher Tropentag, International Research on Food Security, National Resource Management and Rural Development. Challenges to Organic Farming and Sustainable Land Use in the Tropics and Subtropics. Witzenhausen, Germany: University of Kassel. Pp. 159–169.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Streibig, J. C. 2003. Herbicides—a two-edged sword. Weed Res. 43:90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S., Campbell, R. A., Liu, S. H., and Griffith, J. A. 1996a. Efficacy of glyphosate on Populus tremuloides as affected by droplet size and spray volume. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 26:276–287.Google Scholar
Liu, S., Campbell, R. A., Studens, J. A., Wagner, R. G., and Liu, S. H. 1996b. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) as influenced by droplet size, droplet number, and herbicide concentration. Weed Sci. 44:482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, L. 1994. Agrochemical safety practices on farms in the Western Cape. S. Afr. Med. J. 84:273–278.Google ScholarPubMed
Maillet, J. 1991. Control of grassy weeds in tropical cereals. in Baker, F.W.G. and Terry, P. J., eds. Tropical Grassy Weeds. Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CABI. Pp. 112–143.Google Scholar
Makinde, O. K. 2000. Determinants of Food Security in Bauchi Area of the Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Ph.D. dissertation. Ibadan, Nigeria: University of Ibadan. 198 p.Google Scholar
Manyong, V. M., Smith, J. W., Jagtap, S. S., and Oyowole, B. 1996. Macrocharacterization of Agricultural Systems in Central Africa: An Overview. Resource and Crop Management Research Monogr. 22. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. 58 p.Google Scholar
Nielsen, O. K., Ritz, C., and Streibig, J. C. 2004. Analysis of herbicide dose response bioassays using non-linear mixed modeling. Weed Technol. 18:30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, H. and Hallgren, E. 1991. Effect of Roundup (Glyphosate) Against Elymus repens at Different Doses and Different Spray Volume Rates. A Greenhouse Experiment. Swedish Crop Protection Conference. Uppsala, Sweden: Weeds and Weed Control, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) 32:247–254.Google Scholar
Rola, H., Rola, J., Bandowski, M., Haas, H. U., and Hurle, K. 2000. Regrowth of Rhizomes of Elymus repens (L.) Gould After Herbicide Application. Proceedings of the 20th German Conference on Weed Biology and Weed Control. Stuttgart, Germany: University of Hohenheim 17:607–612.Google Scholar
Ruiter, H. D., Uffing, A. J. M., Dijk, N. V., De Ruiter, H., and Van Dijk, N. M. 1999. The Influence of Growth Stage of Weeds on the Glyphosate Dose Needed. in Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Crop Protection conference, Weeds. Brighton, UK: British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 615–620.Google Scholar
Rydahl, P. 1994. Justeringer af PC-planteværn (Adjustments of PC-Plant Protection). in 11 Danske Planteværnskonference. Pesticider og Miljø, Ukrudt (11 Danish Plant Protection conference, side effects of Pesticides, Weeds). Sp Rapport nr 6–1994. Lyngby, Denmark: Planteværnscenteret, Statens Planteavlsforsøg. Pp. 115–124.Google Scholar
Schönherr, J. 2002. A mechanistic analysis of penetration of glyphosate salts across astomatous cuticular membranes. Pestic. Manage. Sci. 58:343–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thonke, K. E., Kudsk, P., and Streibig, J. C. 1989. The effect of adjuvants on the rainfastness of glyphosate applied to quackgrass (Elymus repens). in Chow, P.N.P., Grant, C. A., Hinshalwood, A. M., and Simundsson, E., eds. Adjuvants and Agrochemicals. Volume II. Recent Development, Application, and Bibliography of Agro Adjuvants. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 103–110.Google Scholar
Townson, J. K. 1990. Influence of Formulation and Application Variables in Relation to the Performance of Glyphosate and Imazapyr for Control of Imperata cylindrica (L.). Ph.D. dissertation. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. 312 p.Google Scholar
Townson, J. K. and Butler, R. 1990. Uptake, translocation and phytotoxicity of imazapyr and glyphosate in Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel: effect of herbicide concentration, position of deposit and two methods of direct contact application. Weed Res. 30:235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 9th ed. Soil Survey Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services. Web page: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/tax_keys/keysweb.pdf. Accessed: June 6, 2004.Google Scholar
Utulu, S. N. and Akobundu, I. O. 1980. An evaluation of a CDA herbicide sprayer in a tropical environment. in Akobundu, I. O., ed. Proceedings Ser. 3. Weeds and Their Control in the Humid and Subhumid Tropics. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 379–386.Google Scholar
Willard, T. R., Gaffney, J. F., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Influence of herbicide combinations and application technology on cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) control. Weed Technol. 11:76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar