scholarly journals Three mechanical weed control techniques in spring cereals

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. LÖTJÖNEN ◽  
H. J. MIKKOLA
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Control Techniques ◽  
Mechanical Methods ◽  
Spring Cereals ◽  
Silty Clay Soil ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

An inter-row hoe suitable for cereals was developed for the study, and field experiments were conducted to compare inter-row hoeing with weed harrowing, rotary hoeing and chemical control. The treatments were performed once during the growing season. Inter-row hoeing was studied at row spacings of 180 mm and 250 mm. The weeding effect of the different methods was measured by weighing the weeds remaining just before harvesting. Inter-row hoeing was the most effective of the mechanical methods. Weed harrowing was as good as hoeing in silty clay soil but less effective in mull soil. Rotary hoeing was the least effective. Herbicide spraying was more effective than the mechanical methods in both soils. Increasing the spacing between rows from the standard 125 mm to 250 mm decreased the yield of barley by 12-13%. Inter-row hoeing affected the yield very slightly. The yield decreasing was lower at a row spacing of 180 mm than at 250 mm. Weed harrowing and rotary hoeing decreased the yield 5-10%. Although inter-row hoeing seems to be a fairly effective method for weed control, it may be difficult to compensate for the yield loss due to the increase in row spacing.;

Field Pea and Lentil Tolerance to Interrow Cultivation

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine A. Stanley ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe ◽  
Dilshan Benaragama ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S. N. Duddu
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Field Pea ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Row Crops ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractInterrow cultivation is a selective, in-crop mechanical weed control tool that has the potential to control weeds later in the growing season with less crop damage compared with other in-crop mechanical weed control tools. To our knowledge, no previous research has been conducted on the tolerance of narrow-row crops to interrow cultivation. The objective of this experiment was to determine the tolerance of field pea and lentil to interrow cultivation. Replicated field experiments were conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada, in 2014 and 2015. Weekly cultivation treatments began at the 4-node stage of each crop, continuing for 6 wk. Field pea and lentil yield linearly declined with later crop stages of cultivation. Cultivating multiple times throughout the growing season reduced yield by 15% to 30% in both crops. Minimal yield loss occurred when interrow cultivation was conducted once at early growth stages of field pea and lentil; however, yield loss increased with delayed and more frequent cultivation events.

scholarly journals Sowing of spring cereals in broad bands and the effect of sowing rate, rolling and irrigation on the results

1972 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-137
Author(s):  
Paavo Elonen ◽  
Osmo Kara ◽  
Leo Autio
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiments ◽  
Clay Soil ◽  
Sprinkler Irrigation ◽  
Large Field ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Grain Yields ◽  
Spring Cereals ◽  
Band Method ◽  
Silty Clay Soil

In 1971 two large field experiments, one for spring wheat and the other for barley, were carried out on silty clay soil in southern Finland. Three sowing methods were compared at three sowing rate levels (wheat: 140, 275 or 400 kg/ha, barley: 100, 200 or 300 kg/ha), at two levels of rolling (not rolled or rolled by a Cambridge-roller, 330 kg/m), and at two levels of irrigation (not irrigated or irrigated twice in June, 30 mm at both times). Wheat produced 9 ± 2 % higher grain yields sown with a 12.5 cm spacing between coulters in 7 cm bands than in rows of 2 cm. The increases in yield were almost equal irrespective of the seeding rate, rolling or irrigation. The sowing methods had no noteworthy influence on the ripening or the weight of the wheat grains. Barley responded to the sowing methods to a lesser extent than did wheat. Bands 7 cm wide with 12.5 cm spacing resulted in 5 ± 2 % higher wheat yields and 2 ± 1 % higher barley yields than did bands 10 cm wide with 25 cm spacing. The results indicate that the band method with relatively small spacings between the bands is worth further and more detailed study. An increase in the seeding rate from low to »normal» increased the yields, speeded up ripening and decreased the weight of grains, but when normal seeding rates were exceeded the grain yields were not further improved. Rolling speeded up ripening but did not significantly increase the grain yields. Of the factors included in the study, the sprinkler irrigation affected the yields most by increasing the grain yields of wheat by 23 ± 22 % and those of barley by 29 ± 9 %.

scholarly journals Mechanical weed control in organic winter wheat

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Euro Pannacci ◽  
Francesco Tei ◽  
Marcello Guiducci
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Ground Cover ◽  
Farming Systems ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

Three field experiments were carried out in organic winter wheat in three consecutive years (exp. 1, 2005-06; exp. 2, 2006-07; exp. 3, 2007-08) in central Italy (42°57' N - 12°22' E, 165 m a.s.l.) in order to evaluate the efficacy against weeds and the effects on winter wheat of two main mechanical weed control strategies: 1) spring tine harrowing used at three different application times (1 passage at T1; 2 passages at the time T1; 1 passage at T1 followed by 1 passage at T1 + 14 days) in the crop sowed at narrow (traditional) row spacing (0.15 m) and 2) split-hoeing and finger-weeder, alone and combined at T1, in the crop sowed at wider row spacing (0.30 m). At the time T1 winter wheat was at tillering and weeds were at the cotyledons-2 true leaves growth stage. The experimental design was a split-plot with four replicates. Six weeks after mechanical treatments, weed ground cover (%) was rated visually using the Braun–Blanquet cover-abundance scale; weeds on three squares (0.6 x 0.5 m each one) per plot were collected, counted, weighed, dried in oven at 105 °C to determine weed density and weed above-ground dry biomass. At harvest, wheat ears density, grain yield, weight of 1000 seeds and hectolitre weight were recorded. Total weed flora was quite different in the three experiments. The main weed species were: <em>Polygonum aviculare</em> L. (exp. 1 and 2), <em>Fallopia convolvulus</em> (L.) Á. Löve (exp. 1 and 3), <em>Stachys annua</em> (L.) L. (exp. 1), <em>Anagallis arvensis</em> L. (exp. 2), <em>Papaver rhoeas</em> L. (exp.3), <em>Veronica hederifolia</em> L. (exp. 3). In the winter wheat sowed at narrow rows, 2 passages with spring-tine harrowing at the same time seems to be the best option in order to reconcile a good efficacy with the feasibility of treatment. In wider rows spacing the best weed control was obtained by splithoeing alone or combined with finger-weeder. The grain yield, on average 10% higher in narrow rows, the lower costs and the good selectivity of spring-tine harrowing treatments seems to suggest the adoption of narrow rows spacing in wheat in organic and low-input farming systems.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control (CPWC) in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan ISIK ◽  
Adem AKCA ◽  
Emine KAYA ALTOP ◽  
Nihat TURSUN ◽  
Husrev MENNAN
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Weed Interference

Accurate assessment of crop-weed control period is an essential part for planning an effective weed management for cropping systems. Field experiments were conducted during the seasonal growing periods of potato in 2012 and 2013 in Kayseri, Turkey to assess critical period for weed control (CPWC) in potato. A four parameter log-logistic model was used to assist in monitoring and analysing two sets of related, relative crop yield. Data was obtained during the periods of increased weed interference and as a comparison, during weed-free periods. In both years, the relative yield of potato decreased with a longer period of weed-interference whereas increased with increasing length of weed free period. In 2012, the CPWC ranged from 112 to 1014 GDD (Growing Degree Days) which corresponded to 8 to 66 days after crop emergence (DAE) and between 135-958 GDD (10 to 63 DAE) in the following year based on a 5% acceptable yield loss. Weed-free conditions needed to be established as early as the first week after crop emergence and maintained as late as ten weeks after crop emergence to avoid more than 5% yield loss in the potato. The results suggest that CPWC could well assist potato producers to significantly reduce the expense of their weed management programs as well as improving its efficacy.

Protecting Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) from Fluometuron Injury with Seed Protectants

Weed Science ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Billy R. Corbin ◽  
Robert E. Frans
Keyword(s):  
Growth Regulators ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Clay Soil ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Silt Loam ◽  
Chlormequat Chloride ◽  
Mepiquat Chloride ◽  
Loam Soil ◽  
Silty Clay Soil

Field experiments were conducted in 1986 and 1987 to evaluate the potential of growth regulators mepiquat chloride and chlormequat chloride as seed treatments to protect cotton from fluometuron injury. Fluometuron at two and three times the recommended use rate reduced cotton stand and height on Taloka and Convent silt loam soils both years. Cotton grown on a Sharkey silty clay soil was not injured by fluometuron. Mepiquat chloride and chlormequat chloride increased cotton stands on a Taloka silt loam soil when averaged over rates and years. In general, fluometuron injury to cotton was not reduced by treating seed with 1000 ppmw concentrations of chlormequat chloride or mepiquat chloride. Chlormequat chloride reduced chlorosis and necrosis of cotton treated with fluometuron, but neither growth regulator eliminated cotton injury or yield reduction caused by fluometuron at two or three times the recommended rates.

Early Season Herbicide Applications for Weed Control in Stale Seedbed Soybean (Glycine max)

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey A. Bruff ◽  
David R. Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Sandy Loam ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Silty Clay ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Pitted Morningglory ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Hemp Sesbania ◽  
Selective Herbicide

Field experiments were conducted in 1989 and 1990 on silty clay and sandy loam soils to evaluate weed control and soybean yield with early-April preplant incorporation of selective herbicides in stale seedbed soybean followed by non-selective weed control measures at planting. Metribuzin applied PPI early followed by chlorimuron POST coupled with either glyphosate or paraquat PRE controlled sicklepod, pitted morningglory, and hemp sesbania to the same extent of that treatment applied PPI at planting. All stale seedbed treatments with POST applications and glyphosate, paraquat, or tillage at planting controlled pitted morningglory over 70%. However, imazaquin or metribuzin applied PPI early without a POST treatment controlled sicklepod and pitted morningglory poorly. Frequently, applying PPI herbicides at planting increased control compared with early PPI applications, but this was overcome by POST treatments. Early stale seedbed applications of metribuzin did not result in more than 60% control of hemp sesbania, whereas metribuzin applied PPI at planting controlled over 85%. However, metribuzin plus chlorimuron controlled hemp sesbania at least 74%, regardless of application timing or tillage method, whereas no imazaquin treatment achieved over 65% control. All stale seedbed herbicide treatments increased soybean yield compared with the untreated stale seedbed check. Selective herbicide treatments with either non-selective herbicide in a stale seedbed program resulted in equivalent yield to PPI at planting treatments most often, except with metribuzin.

Tolerance and Selectivity of Cereal Species and Cultivars to Postemergence Weed Harrowing

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesper Rasmussen ◽  
Helle H. Nielsen ◽  
Hanne Gundersen
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Soil Cover ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
Barley Cultivars ◽  
Cereal Species

POST weed harrowing and other cultivation methods to control weeds in early crop growth stages may result in crop damage due to low selectivity between crop and weeds. Crop tolerance to cultivation plays an important role but it has not been clearly defined and analyzed. We introduce a procedure for analyzing crop tolerance on the basis of digital image analysis. Crop tolerance is defined as the ability of the crop to avoid yield loss from cultivation in the absence of weeds, and it has two components: resistance and recovery. Resistance is the ability of the crop to resist soil covering and recovery is the ability to recover from it. Soil covering is the percentage of the crop that has been buried because of cultivation. We analyzed data from six field experiments, four experiments with species of small grains, barley, oat, wheat, and triticale, and two experiments with barley cultivars with different abilities to suppress weeds. The order of species' tolerance to weed harrowing was triticale > wheat > barley > oat and the differences were mainly caused by different abilities to recover from soil covering. At 25% soil covering, grain yield loss in triticale was 0.5%, in wheat 2.5%, in barley 3.7%, and in oat 6.5%. Tolerance, resistance, and recovery, however, were influenced by year, especially for oat and barley. There was no evidence of differences between barley cultivars in terms of tolerance indicating that differences among species are more important than differences among cultivars. Selectivity analysis made it possible to calculate the crop yield loss due to crop damage associated with a certain percentage of weed control. In triticale, 80% weed control was associated with 22% crop soil cover on average, which reduced grain yield 0.4% on average in the absence of weeds. Corresponding values for wheat, barley, and oat were 23, 21, and 20% crop soil cover and 2.3, 3.6, and 5.1% grain yield loss.

Control and Competitiveness of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Weed Science ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. E. Keeley ◽  
R. J. Thullen
Keyword(s):  
Gossypium Hirsutum ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Sorghum Halepense ◽  
Cotton Yield ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Seed Cotton ◽  
Average Yield ◽  
Labor Costs

Four field experiments conducted over 3 yr indicated that cultivation alone failed to prevent johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense(L.) Pers.] from reaching densities that severely reduced yields of cotton (Gossypium hirsutumL. ‘Acala SJ-2’). Density of johnsongrass in plots cultivated four times and hoed weekly for 8 weeks after emergence was reduced to 1 shoot/m2at harvest compared to 74 shoots/m2for plots that were only cultivated. In addition to a 60% average yield loss of seed cotton, yield losses ranging from 40 to 76%, ginning losses were also greater from cultivated than from hand-weeded plots. Compared to cultivated plots, supplementing cultivation with two postemergence applications of 3.0 kg/ha of DSMA (disodium methanearsonate) increased the average yield of cotton by 20% and reduced perennial johnsongrass densities by 64% at harvest. Although yields were improved by applying DSMA, they averaged 40% less than those of hand-weeded plots. The temporary weed control obtained with DSMA was profitable in terms of the additional lint and seed obtained, but insufficient cotton was produced to pay expenses for producing the crop by any of the methods of weed control. High labor costs for hoeing prevented this treatment from being profitable.

Machine thinning of sugar beet: field trials with chemical and mechanical weed control

1966 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. F. Hanbury ◽  
G. L. Maughan
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Mechanical Methods ◽  
Large Scale Field ◽  
Commercial Yield ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

Large-scale field trials in sugar beet were undertaken between 1961 and 1963 to examine the effects of chemical or mechanical weed control followed by machine thinning in terms of labour economy and yield of the crop. The seedling populations were left untrimmed by hand and, where the weed-control measures were completely effective or nearly so, the crops were left unweeded. Yield samples were taken both by hand and by machine so that the potential yield as well as the likely commercial yield might be determined. The chemical and mechanical methods that were studied saved about 75% of the normal labour demand and gave root yields 91.5% of those following hand work.

Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans

1990 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 114-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Gunsolus
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Maximum Yield ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Yield Potential ◽  
Row Spacing ◽  
Corn Yield ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Nonchemical Weed Control ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

AbstractMany farmers and consumers are reevaluating chemical weed control because of the environmental risks of herbicides and their influence on farm size and diversity. This paper reviews research of the last 35 years on mechanical and cultural weed control in corn(Zea maysL.)and soybeans(Glycine maxL.).Soybeans can better use the weed control advantages of late planting and narrow row spacing and are less affected by early stand losses from mechanical weed control. In Minnesota, delaying planting to early June allows early germinating weeds to be controlled by preplant tillage but reduces the maximum yield potential of corn by approximately 25 percent and soybeans by approximately 10 percent. Narrow rows allow the crop canopy to close earlier, preventing emerging weeds from developing. However, in a nonchemical weed control system, the row spacing should allow for inter-row cultivation to control weeds that emerge with the crop. Up to a 10 percent reduction in crop stand may be expected in fields that have been rotary hoed. In Minnesota, a 10 percent stand loss results in a 2 percent loss of corn yield potential and no loss of soybean yield potential. Successful mechanical weed control is directly related to the timeliness of the operation. Rotary hoeing is effective on weeds that have germinated but not yet emerged but not on weeds that germinate from deeper than 5 cm, on no-till fields, or on fields with more than 20 to 30 percent crop residue. Inter-row cultivation is most effective on weeds up to 10 to 15 cm tall. Successful nonchemical weed control requires highly refined management skills and is as much an art as a science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document