Weeds are one of the most significant, and controllable, threats to crop production in North America. Monetary losses because of reduced soybean yield and decreased quality because of weed interference, as well as costs of controlling weeds, have a significant economic impact on net returns to producers. Previous Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Weed Loss Committee reports, as chaired by Chandler (1984) and Bridges (1992), provided snapshots of the comparative crop yield losses because of weeds across geographic regions and crops within these regions after the implementation of weed control tactics. This manuscript is a second report from the current WSSA Weed Loss Committee on crop yield losses because of weeds, specifically in soybean. Yield loss estimates were determined from comparative observations of soybean yields between the weedy control and plots with greater than 95% weed control in studies conducted from 2007 to 2013. Researchers from each US state and Canadian province provided at least three and up to ten individual comparisons for each year, which were then averaged within a year, and then averaged over the seven years. These percent yield loss values were used to determine total soybean yield loss in t ha⁻¹and bu acre⁻¹based on average soybean yields for each state or province as well as current commodity prices for a given year as summarized by USDA-NASS (2014) and Statistics Canada (2015). Averaged across 2007 to 2013, weed interference in soybean caused a 52.1% yield loss. Based on 2012 census data in the US and Canada soybean was grown on 30,798,512 and 1,679,203 hectares with production of 80 million and 5 million tonnes, respectively. Using an average soybean price across 2007 to 2013 of US $389.81 t⁻¹($10.61 bu⁻¹), farm gate value would be reduced by US $16.2 billion in the US and $1.0 billion in Canada annually if no weed management tactics were employed.

Yield losses due to weeds are a major threat to wheat production and economic well-being of farmers in the United States and Canada. The objective of this Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) Weed Loss Committee report is to provide estimates of wheat yield and economic losses due to weeds. Weed scientists provided both weedy (best management practices but no weed control practices) and weed-free (best management practices providing >90% weed control) average yield from replicated research trials in both winter and spring wheat from 2007 to 2017. Winter wheat yield loss estimates ranged from 2.9% to 34.4%, with a weighted average (by production) of 25.6% for the United States, 2.9% for Canada, and 23.4% combined. Based on these yield loss estimates and total production, the potential winter wheat loss due to weeds is 10.5, 0.09, and 10.5 billion kg with a potential loss in value of US$2.19, US$0.19, and US$2.19 billion for the United States, Canada, and combined, respectively. Spring wheat yield loss estimates ranged from 7.9% to 47.0%, with a weighted average (by production) of 33.2% for the United States, 8.0% for Canada, and 19.5% combined. Based on this yield loss estimate and total production, the potential spring wheat loss is 4.8, 1.6, and 6.6 billion kg with a potential loss in value of US$1.14, US$0.37, and US$1.39 billion for the United States, Canada, and combined, respectively. Yield loss in this analysis is greater than some previous estimates, likely indicating an increasing threat from weeds. Climate is affecting yield loss in winter wheat in the Pacific Northwest, with percent yield loss being highest in wheat-fallow systems that receive less than 30 cm of annual precipitation. Continued investment in weed science research for wheat is critical for continued yield protection.

Earlier reports have summarized crop yield losses throughout various North American regions if weeds were left uncontrolled. Offered here is a report from the current WSSA Weed Loss Committee on potential yield losses due to weeds based on data collected from various regions of the United States and Canada. Dry bean yield loss estimates were made by comparing dry bean yield in the weedy control with plots that had >95% weed control from research studies conducted in dry bean growing regions of the United States and Canada over a 10-year period (2007 to 2016). Results from these field studies showed that dry bean growers in Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Ontario, and Manitoba would potentially lose an average of 50%, 31%, 36%, 59%, 94%, 31%, 71%, 56%, and 71% of their dry bean yield, respectively. This equates to a monetary loss of US $36, 40, 6, 56, 421, 2, 18, 44, and 44 million, respectively, if the best agronomic practices are used without any weed management tactics. Based on 2016 census data, at an average yield loss of 71.4% for North America due to uncontrolled weeds, dry bean production in the United States and Canada would be reduced by 941,000,000 and 184,000,000 kg, valued at approximately US $622 and US $100 million, respectively. This study documents the dramatic yield and monetary losses in dry beans due to weed interference and the importance of continued funding for weed management research to minimize dry bean yield losses.

Herbicides have been placed in global Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) herbicide groups based on their sites of action (e.g., acetolactate synthase–inhibiting herbicides are grouped in HRAC Group 2). A major driving force for this classification system is that growers have been encouraged to rotate or mix herbicides from different HRAC groups to delay the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, because in theory, all active ingredients within a herbicide group physiologically affect weeds similarly. Although herbicide resistance in weeds has been studied for decades, recent research on the biochemical and molecular basis for resistance has demonstrated that patterns of cross-resistance are usually quite complicated and much more complex than merely stating, for example, a certain weed population is Group 2-resistant. The objective of this review article is to highlight and describe the intricacies associated with the magnitude of herbicide resistance and cross-resistance patterns that have resulted from myriad target-site and non–target site resistance mechanisms in weeds, as well as environmental and application timing influences. Our hope is this review will provide opportunities for students, growers, agronomists, ag retailers, regulatory personnel, and research scientists to better understand and realize that herbicide resistance in weeds is far more complicated than previously considered when based solely on HRAC groups. Furthermore, a comprehensive understanding of cross-resistance patterns among weed species and populations may assist in managing herbicide-resistant biotypes in the short term by providing growers with previously unconsidered effective control options. This knowledge may also inform agrochemical company efforts aimed at developing new resistance-breaking chemistries and herbicide mixtures. However, in the long term, nonchemical management strategies, including cultural, mechanical, and biological weed management tactics, must also be implemented to prevent or delay increasingly problematic issues with weed resistance to current and future herbicides.

Six experiments were conducted in 2018 on field sites located in Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ontario, and Wisconsin to evaluate the off-target movement (OTM) of dicamba under field-scale conditions. The highest estimated percentages of dicamba injury in non–dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean were 55%, 44%, 39%, 67%, 15%, and 44% injury for noncovered areas and 55%, 5%, 13%, 42%, 0%, and 41% injury for covered areas during dicamba application in Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ontario, and Wisconsin, respectively. The level of injury generally decreased as the downwind distance increased under covered and noncovered areas at all sites. There was an estimated 10% injury in non-DR soybean at 113, 8, 11, 8, and 8 m; and estimated 1% injury at 293, 28, 71, 15, and 19 m from the edge of treated fields downwind when plants were not covered during dicamba application in Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Ontario, and Wisconsin, respectively. Assessment of filter-paper collectors placed from 4 to 137 m downwind from the edge of the sprayed area suggested the dicamba deposition reduced exponentially with distance. The greatest injury to non-DR soybean from dicamba OTM occurred at Nebraska and Arkansas (as far as 250 m). Non-DR soybean injury was greatest adjacent to the dicamba sprayed area, but injury decreased with no injury beyond 20 m downwind or in any other direction from the dicamba sprayed area in Indiana, Michigan, Ontario, and Wisconsin. The presence of soybean injury under covered and noncovered areas during the spray period for primary drift suggests that secondary movement of dicamba was evident at five sites. Additional research is needed to determine the exact forms of secondary movement of dicamba under different environmental conditions.

The objective of this WSSA Weed Loss Committee report is to provide quantitative data on the potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference from the major sugar beet growing areas of the United States and Canada. Researchers and extension specialists who conducted research on weed control in sugar beet in the United States and Canada provided quantitative data on sugar beet yield loss due to weed interference in their regions. Specifically, data were requested from weed control studies in sugar beet from up to 10 individual studies per calendar year over a 15-yr period between 2002 and 2017. Data collected indicated that if weeds are left uncontrolled under optimal agronomic practices, growers in Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ontario, Oregon, and Wyoming would potentially lose an average of 79%, 61%, 66%, 68%, 63%, 75%, 83%, 78%, and 77% of the sugar beet yield. The corresponding monetary loss would be approximately US$234, US$122, US$369, US$43, US$40, US$211, US$12, US$14, and US$32 million, respectively. The average yield loss due to weed interference for the primary sugar beet growing areas of North America was estimated to be 70%. Thus, if weeds are not controlled, growers in the United States would lose approximately 22.4 million tonnes of sugar beet yield valued at approximately US$1.25 billion, and growers in Canada would lose approximately 0.5 million tonnes of sugar beet yield valued at approximately US$25 million. The high return on investment in weed management highlights the importance of continued weed science research for sustaining high crop yield and profitability of sugar beet production in North America.