Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities
Public awareness and environmental policies have increased interest in applying non-herbicide weed control methods in conventional farming systems. Even though mechanical weed control has been used for centuries in agricultural practice, continuous developments—both in terms of implements and automa...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | Agronomy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/10/2084 |
| _version_ | 1797515546739081216 |
|---|---|
| author | Georg-Peter Naruhn Gerassimos G. Peteinatos Andreas F. Butz Kurt Möller Roland Gerhards |
| author_facet | Georg-Peter Naruhn Gerassimos G. Peteinatos Andreas F. Butz Kurt Möller Roland Gerhards |
| author_sort | Georg-Peter Naruhn |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Public awareness and environmental policies have increased interest in applying non-herbicide weed control methods in conventional farming systems. Even though mechanical weed control has been used for centuries in agricultural practice, continuous developments—both in terms of implements and automation technologies—are continuously improving the potential outcomes. Current mechanical weed control methods were evaluated for their weed control efficacy and effects on yield potential against their equivalent herbicide methods. Furthermore, not much is known about the correlation between weed control efficacy (WCE) of different mechanical methods at varying weed density levels. A total of six experiments in winter wheat (2), peas (2), and soybean (2) were carried out in the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 in southwestern Germany. Harrowing and hoeing treatments at different speeds were carried out and compared to the herbicide treatments and untreated control plots. Regarding the average WCE, the combination of harrowing and hoeing was both the strongest (82%) and the most stable (74–100%) mechanical treatment in the different weed density levels. Whereas, in average, hoeing (72%) and harrowing (71%) were on the same WCE level, but harrowing (49–82%) was more stable than hoeing (40–99%). The grain yields in winter wheat varied between 4.1 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (control) and 6.3 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (harrow), in pea between 2.8 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (hoe slow) and 5.7 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (hoe fast) and in soybean between 1.7 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (control) and 4 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (herbicide). However, there were no significant differences in most cases. The results have shown that it is not possible to pinpoint a specific type of treatment as the most appropriate method for this cultivation, across all of the different circumstances. Different field and weather conditions can heavily affect and impact the expected outcome, giving, each time, an advantage for a specific type of treatment. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T06:46:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-186cd746aff54db5883ad684036ed178 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2073-4395 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T06:46:56Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Agronomy |
| spelling | doaj.art-186cd746aff54db5883ad684036ed1782023-11-22T17:08:02ZengMDPI AGAgronomy2073-43952021-10-011110208410.3390/agronomy11102084Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed DensitiesGeorg-Peter Naruhn0Gerassimos G. Peteinatos1Andreas F. Butz2Kurt Möller3Roland Gerhards4Department of Weed Science, Institute of Phytomedicine, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, GermanyDepartment of Weed Science, Institute of Phytomedicine, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, GermanyDepartment of Applied Crop Science, Center for Agricultural Technology Augustenberg (LTZ), 76287 Rheinstetten, GermanyDepartment of Applied Crop Science, Center for Agricultural Technology Augustenberg (LTZ), 76287 Rheinstetten, GermanyDepartment of Weed Science, Institute of Phytomedicine, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, GermanyPublic awareness and environmental policies have increased interest in applying non-herbicide weed control methods in conventional farming systems. Even though mechanical weed control has been used for centuries in agricultural practice, continuous developments—both in terms of implements and automation technologies—are continuously improving the potential outcomes. Current mechanical weed control methods were evaluated for their weed control efficacy and effects on yield potential against their equivalent herbicide methods. Furthermore, not much is known about the correlation between weed control efficacy (WCE) of different mechanical methods at varying weed density levels. A total of six experiments in winter wheat (2), peas (2), and soybean (2) were carried out in the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 in southwestern Germany. Harrowing and hoeing treatments at different speeds were carried out and compared to the herbicide treatments and untreated control plots. Regarding the average WCE, the combination of harrowing and hoeing was both the strongest (82%) and the most stable (74–100%) mechanical treatment in the different weed density levels. Whereas, in average, hoeing (72%) and harrowing (71%) were on the same WCE level, but harrowing (49–82%) was more stable than hoeing (40–99%). The grain yields in winter wheat varied between 4.1 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (control) and 6.3 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (harrow), in pea between 2.8 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (hoe slow) and 5.7 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (hoe fast) and in soybean between 1.7 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (control) and 4 Mg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (herbicide). However, there were no significant differences in most cases. The results have shown that it is not possible to pinpoint a specific type of treatment as the most appropriate method for this cultivation, across all of the different circumstances. Different field and weather conditions can heavily affect and impact the expected outcome, giving, each time, an advantage for a specific type of treatment.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/10/2084harrowinghoeingmechanical weed controlpeasoybeanwheat |
| spellingShingle | Georg-Peter Naruhn Gerassimos G. Peteinatos Andreas F. Butz Kurt Möller Roland Gerhards Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities Agronomy harrowing hoeing mechanical weed control pea soybean wheat |
| title | Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities |
| title_full | Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities |
| title_fullStr | Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities |
| title_full_unstemmed | Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities |
| title_short | Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities |
| title_sort | efficacy of various mechanical weeding methods single and in combination in terms of different field conditions and weed densities |
| topic | harrowing hoeing mechanical weed control pea soybean wheat |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/10/2084 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT georgpeternaruhn efficacyofvariousmechanicalweedingmethodssingleandincombinationintermsofdifferentfieldconditionsandweeddensities AT gerassimosgpeteinatos efficacyofvariousmechanicalweedingmethodssingleandincombinationintermsofdifferentfieldconditionsandweeddensities AT andreasfbutz efficacyofvariousmechanicalweedingmethodssingleandincombinationintermsofdifferentfieldconditionsandweeddensities AT kurtmoller efficacyofvariousmechanicalweedingmethodssingleandincombinationintermsofdifferentfieldconditionsandweeddensities AT rolandgerhards efficacyofvariousmechanicalweedingmethodssingleandincombinationintermsofdifferentfieldconditionsandweeddensities |