During the fall of 2021 and spring of 2022, an 18-question survey ( Table 1 ) was designed to (1) document the main chemical weed control strategies utilized and the main end-of-season weed escapes (left uncontrolled due to herbicide-resistance or late emergence) detected in corn and soybean cropping systems across Kansas and Nebraska (WUMR) compared to Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (EUMR) in the 2021 growing season and to (2) understand stakeholders’ perceptions of new targeted spraying technologies and explore challenges and opportunities of their adoption. A digital (QualtricsXM; Provo, UT) survey was circulated via the social media platform X (former Twitter) (San Francisco, CA), email listservs, extension websites (e.g., K-State eUpdate, UNL-CropWatch, UW-Madison WiscWeeds.info), and promoted during Extension meetings in Kansas, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. The survey was organized into four sections. The first section (questions 1-4) focused respondent demographics ( Table 1 ). The second (questions 5-9) and third (questions 10-15) sections focused on soybean and corn cropping system practices, respectively. The last section (questions 16-18) was focused on the adoption of and perceptions regarding targeted spraying technologies. The survey questions were designed as fill-in-the-blank, yes/no, and multiple choice. Not all participants answered every survey question (Oliveira et al., 2021).

All results were exported from Qualtrics into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office, Redmond, WA) spreadsheet, with responses to each question organized in separate columns. Survey data were sorted and analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the “count,” “filter,” and “sort” functions (Werle et al., 2018). Data visualization was performed using the tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019) and ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016) packages in the R statistical software (R Development Core Team, 2024). For most questions, results were presented as the percentage of respondents selecting each answer choice (Werle et al., 2018). The respondents’ familiarity with targeted spraying technologies (ground-based sprayers) and their perspectives on the likelihood of adopting these technologies on the hectares they farm or manage in the future (binary response: Yes/No) were reported.

A total of 128 respondents participated in the survey ( Figure 1 ). Of these, 26% (n=33) were from the WUMR and 74% (n=95) were from the EUMR. In the WUMR, 33% of respondents identified as farmers, 21% as agronomists, and 21% as crop consultants, while in the EUMR, 24% of respondents identified as farmers, 30% as agronomists, and 29% as crop consultants. Industry representatives accounted for 16% of respondents in the WUMR and 11% in the EUMR.

In 2021, survey respondents farmed or managed a total of 217,000 hectares of soybean and 318,000 hectares of corn (Question 4). Of the soybean hectares, WUMR accounted for 47,000 hectares, representing 1% of soybean hectares in Nebraska and Kansas, while EUMR covered 170,000 hectares, representing 2% of Soybean hectares in Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin (Anonymous, 2024a; USDA - NASS, 2024). For corn, WUMR accounted for 42,000 hectares, representing 1% of corn hectares in Nebraska and Kansas, while EUMR covered 276,000 hectares, representing 3% of corn hectares in Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin (Anonymous, 2024a; USDA - NASS, 2024).

According to survey respondents, 52% of soybean producers in the WUMR and 50% in the EUMR utilized the two-pass program (PRE followed by POST) with layered residuals in 2021 ( Table 2 ). Additionally, 26% of soybean growers in the WUMR and 11% in the EUMR utilized the two-pass program without the layered residual approach. In both regions, only 4% of respondents utilized a one-pass program in soybean production systems. Therefore, two pass herbicide programs are common practice in both regions.

In WUMR, most soybean growers (54%) depend on commercial applicator services for 0 to 10% of their hectares, while 12% heavily depend on commercial application services for 91 to 100% of their managed hectares ( Figure 2 ). In the EUMR, 32% of soybean growers rely on commercial applicator services for herbicide applications on 0 to10% of their managed hectares, while 21% depend on commercial applicator services for 91 to 100% of their managed hectares ( Figure 2 ). Commercial applicator services play a crucial role in supporting farmers by investing in large scale equipment, providing expert advice and a variety of herbicide offerings, and integrating digital management tools (Anonymous, 2024b). The greater reliance on commercial applicator services in the EUMR highlights their important role in fostering the adoption of more cost-effective herbicide strategies and potentially impacting the implementation of targeted spraying technologies across a larger portion of farming operations, reducing the need for farmers to invest in new equipment.

In the WUMR, 32% of respondents reported being very satisfied (excellent weed control) with the performance of their weed control program ( Figure 3 ). Furthermore, 48% indicated they were satisfied (good weed control), while 12% were somewhat satisfied (fair weed control). In the EUMR, 25% of respondents reported being very satisfied, 55% were satisfied, and 15% were somewhat satisfied with their weed control program. Most respondents in both regions reported utilizing the two-pass program in soybean, a practice aligned with research recommendations to achieve effective (>90%) season long control of herbicide-resistant weeds such as Palmer amaranth (Kumar et al., 2021), waterhemp (Duenk et al., 2023a), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.) (Duenk et al., 2023b), and giant ragweed (Striegel et al, 2021; Mobli et al., 2025). However, growers should prioritize adopting a diverse and integrated weed management program to ensure sustainability and prolong the effectiveness of available herbicide options.

In 2021, soybean producers reported chemical weed control costs (including chemical and application cost) ranging from $55 to $100 per hectare in the WUMR and from $31 to $70 per hectare in the EUMR, depending on their herbicide program strategies ( Figure 4 ). In the WUMR, a two-pass herbicide program with layered residual herbicides costed an average of $66 per hectare, compared to $55 per hectare for a two-pass program without residual herbicides. Similarly, in the EUMR, soybean producers spent an average of $45 per hectare for a two-pass herbicide program with layered residual herbicides, compared to $58 per hectare for a program without residual herbicides in 2021. The cost of chemical weed control in soybean production can vary widely depending on the selected herbicide program, application rate, application technology, and the demographic and density of the weed community (Meseldžija et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2021; Vishwakarma et al., 2023; Avent et al., 2024). Moreover, the presence of herbicide-resistant weed species, combined with adverse environmental interactions that reduce herbicide efficacy (Yu and Powles, 2014; Landau et al., 2024), can further increase these costs. Developing effective herbicide strategies requires balancing economic feasibility with the goals of achieving effective weed control.

In the WUMR, the most dominant weed species that escaped weed management practices in soybean fields were Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, volunteer corn, and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik) ( Figure 5 ). In the EUMR, the dominant weed species that escaped herbicide control included waterhemp, giant ragweed, volunteer corn, velvetleaf, and horseweed. Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, giant ragweed, velvetleaf, and horseweed are consistently recognized as major threats to soybean production across the Midwest (WSSA, 2017; Arsenijevic et al., 2022; Chudzik et al., 2024) due to their rapid growth, high seed production, and resistance to multiple herbicide modes of action (Harrison et al., 2001; Shrestha et al., 2010; Arsenijevic et al., 2022; Heap, 2025). Likewise, volunteer corn, often underestimated as a weed in soybean fields (Chahal and Jhala, 2015; Alms et al., 2016), has been shown to cause yield losses of up to 40% at low densities with maximum yield loss reaching 71%, highlighting its competitiveness similar to many common Midwestern weed species (Alms et al., 2016).

In the WUMR, the PRE followed by (fb) POST without layered residual herbicides (45%) and the PRE fb POST with layered residual herbicides (36%) were the most dominant herbicide strategies in corn production systems ( Table 3 ). In contrast, in the EUMR, commonly used herbicide strategies included POST-only (20%), PRE fb POST with layered residual herbicides (25%), PRE fb POST without layered residual herbicides (25%), and PRE-only (22%). Selecting effective herbicide strategies is critical for corn growers. While a single pass herbicide strategy is still common in the EUMR, recent research recommends two-pass herbicide strategies as the most effective and reliable option for achieving consistent, end-of-season weed control, regardless of weed species composition or environmental conditions (Mobli et al., 2023, 2025). However, a one-pass herbicide strategy may still be effective for managing specific weed communities with low densities in conventional tillage corn production (Mobli et al., 2025).

In the WUMR, most corn growers (64%) relied on commercial applicator services for 0 to 10% of their land, while 9% were highly dependent on commercial applicator services for 91 to 100% of their managed hectares ( Figure 6 ). In contrast, in the EUMR, reliance on commercial applicator services varied among corn growers, with 36% dependent on commercial applicator services for 0 to 10% of their land and over 30% relied on commercial applicator services for herbicide applications on 50 to 100% of their hectares. This highlights the significant dependence of EUMR producers on commercial applicator services, underscoring the need for specialized support to address logistical challenges that impact profitability and increase operational costs.

In the WUMR, 36% of respondents were very satisfied with their weed control program, while 45% were satisfied, and 18% reported they were somewhat satisfied ( Figure 7 ). In the EUMR, 25% of respondents were very satisfied, 64% were satisfied, and 11% reported they were somewhat satisfied with their weed control program.

In 2021, corn producers estimated chemical weed control costs (including chemical and application cost) ranging from $54 to $61 per hectare in the WUMR and from $20 to $70 per hectare in the EUMR, depending on their herbicide application strategies ( Figure 8 ). In the WUMR, a PRE fb POST application with layered residuals costed an average of $61 per hectare, compared to $57 per hectare for a two-pass herbicide program without layered residuals on average. In the EUMR, the average cost of a PRE fb POST program with layered residuals was $43 per hectare, while a two-pass program without residuals costed an average of $45 per hectare. Additionally, in the EUMR, the average cost of a one-pass PRE was $32 per hectare, compared to $39 per hectare for a one-pass POST. Herbicides remain the most common tools for weed management in corn and soybean production systems in US Midwest (Dong et al., 2017) however higher herbicide costs and lower commodity prices can greatly affect growers’ production profitability margins (Anonymous, 2023b).

The most common weed species that escaped herbicide control in the WUMR were Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, and foxtail species ( Figure 9 ). In contrast, in the EUMR, the predominant weed species that escaped herbicide control were foxtail species, waterhemp, giant ragweed, and barnyardgrass. Weeds in corn can escape control due to factors such as herbicide resistance (Recker et al., 2015), poorly timed weed management practices, and adverse interactions between these practices and environmental conditions (Scursoni et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Krähmer, 2016). Even if escaped weed species were to have minimal impact on crop yields, their seed production poses a significant concern by replenishing the soil seedbank and intensifying future weed challenges (Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy, 2012). Moreover, identifying escaped weeds is critical for developing effective weed management programs, as it offers valuable insights into missed weed management opportunities by current strategies.

Most respondents in the WUMR (65%) and EUMR (68%) were familiar with targeted spraying technologies (Question 16). In the WUMR, 48% of respondents did not consider adoption of targeted spraying technologies a viable option and another 48% were unsure or indicated they needed more information about these technologies before considering their use ( Figure 10 ), and only 2% of respondents in the WUMR anticipated adopting targeted spraying technologies for herbicide application in their future operations. In contrast, 17% of respondents in the EUMR anticipated adopting targeted spraying technologies for their herbicide application in future operations, though 31% of respondents did not consider targeted spraying technologies a viable option for adoption and another 53% were unsure or indicated they would need more information before considering their use.

Nine percent of respondents in the WUMR and 6% in the EUMR anticipated targeted spraying technologies being adopted as part of all herbicide applications ( Figure 11 ). The majority of respondents from the WUMR (57%) and the EUMR (49%) anticipated targeted spraying technologies being utilized for controlling late season weed escapes. However, current targeted spraying technologies face challenges in detecting weeds later in the season due to the advanced growth stages of both crops and weeds (Adhinata and Sumiharto, 2024). Moreover, escaped weeds in advanced growth stages late season are typically less susceptible to herbicides (Blackshaw and Harker, 1996; Chauhan and Abugho, 2012). Therefore, the adoption of this technology for controlling late season weed escapes may not be the most effective approach for its use thus further research is warranted. The survey results highlighted a critical need to raise awareness about targeted spraying technologies and increase understanding of their effectiveness across various application timings, with the goal of supporting best management practices for adoption of this emerging technology.

Among respondents, 13% in the WUMR and 19% in the EUMR anticipated adopting targeted spraying technologies exclusively as part of POST herbicide applications ( Figure 11 ). Targeted sprayers equipped with green-on-green technology hold significant potential as an alternative to traditional POST applications. However, previous studies have demonstrated that under high weed densities, targeted spraying technologies function similarly to traditional broadcast systems, diminishing the benefit of targeted applications (Ugljic et al., 2024). Moreover, in the presence of troublesome weed species such as giant ragweed, at a high density, a single POST application showed the lack of effective weed control (Mobli et al., 2025). A robust PRE herbicide program can reduce weed populations throughout the growing season (Trolove et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2023) and enhance the effectiveness of POST herbicide applications with targeted spraying technologies.

The current survey revealed that most respondents utilized a two-pass herbicide program; however, problematic and common weeds such as Palmer amaranth, waterhemp, giant ragweed, foxtail species, and volunteer corn were reported to escape control. Eighty and 81% of soybean and corn growers in both regions reported satisfaction with their current weed management practices. Satisfactorily season-long chemical control depends on multiple factors, including environmental conditions, herbicide options, application strategies, operational costs, and the composition of the weed community (Varanasi et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2017). To be widely adopted, novel targeted application technologies will likely need to provide at least equal, if not better, end-of-season weed control and economic return compared to standard broadcast applications. The integration of targeted application technologies as part of POST programs provides a unique opportunity for growers and applicators to apply robust rates of labeled foliar herbicides and herbicide mixtures that would be deemed unacceptable from a crop response and/or economic standpoint, while potentially enhancing weed control, thus grower satisfaction. Moreover, the recent updates regarding Endangered Species Act (EPA, 2024) will impose stricter runoff mitigation and spray drift reduction requirements for herbicides being registered and reregistered. In this context, adopting targeted spraying technologies offers a potential solution to reduce foliar herbicide use, herbicide off-target movement, herbicide runoff, and potential input costs (Brown et al., 2008). In addition, integrating non-chemical weed management strategies into corn and soybean programs should not be overlooked, as most Midwest farmers rely heavily on chemical control.

This survey highlights the importance of understanding growers’ perspectives in implementing targeted spraying technologies as part of effective weed management strategies for corn and soybean production that can either maintain or improve weed control satisfaction and reduce the number of weed escapes. Research priorities identified through the survey highlight the need to raise awareness about the efficacy of targeted spraying technologies in detecting and controlling weeds, ideal application timings, overall herbicide use, and technology and application costs. A common comment provided by participants at the end of the survey was regarding best management practices for the use of soil residual herbicides as part of POST applications where target application technologies are used, which warrants future research. Insights from surveys like this are invaluable for guiding research efforts and advancing innovative weed management strategies and Extension outreach initiatives that benefit corn and soybean farmers across the Midwest and beyond.