Cited by 128Weed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsSoil Management and Crop YieldGenetically Modified Organisms Research

Survey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops

Givens, Wade A., Shaw, David R., Kruger, Greg R., Johnson, William G., Weller, Stephen C., Young, Bryan G., Wilson, Robert G., Owen, Micheal D. K. +1 more·2009·Weed Technology

Abstract

A phone survey was administered to 1,195 growers in six states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina). The survey measured producers' crop history, perception of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, past and present weed pressure, tillage practices, and herbicide use as affected by the adoption of GR crops. This article describes the changes in tillage practice reported in the survey. The adoption of a GR cropping system resulted in a large increase in the percentage of growers using no-till and reduced-till systems. Tillage intensity declined more in continuous GR cotton and GR soybean (45 and 23%, respectively) than in rotations that included GR corn or non-GR crops. Tillage intensity declined more in the states of Mississippi and North Carolina than in the other states, with 33% of the growers in these states shifting to more conservative tillage practices after the adoption of a GR crop. This was primarily due to the lower amount of conservation tillage adoption in these states before GR crop availability. Adoption rates of no-till and reduced-till systems increased as farm size decreased. Overall, producers in a crop rotation that included a GR crop shifted from a relatively more tillage-intense system to reduced-till or no-till systems after implementing a GR crop into their production system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1614/wt-08-038.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 128

Authors
Givens, W. A., Shaw, D. R., Kruger, G. R., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., Young, B. G., Wilson, R. G., Owen, M. D. K., & Jordan, D.
Affiliations
  • Mississippi State University (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Givens, Wade A.
Venue
Weed Technology
Published
2009-03
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
150-155
ISSN
  • 0890-037X (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-2740
OpenAlex
W2149735580
Cited by
128
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Weed Technology (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Weed Control and Herbicide Applications
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Keywords
glyphosate-resistant crops, tillage systems, no-tillage, reduced tillage, conservation tillage, herbicide application, weed pressure, crop rotation, cotton, soybean, maize, farm size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review