Experiments on mechanical weed control in saffron crops in Spain

2014 ◽  
Vol 121 (5) ◽  
pp. 223-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Cirujeda ◽  
Ana Isabel Marí ◽  
Joaquín Aibar ◽  
Sonsoles Fenández-Cavada ◽  
Gabriel Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

scholarly journals Economic and Horticultural Evaluation of Chemical and Mechanical Weed Control Strategies for Cowpea

1992 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-259
Author(s):  
Brian A. Kahn ◽  
Raymond Joe Schatzer
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Seed Yield ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Farm Income ◽  
Control Chemical ◽  
Biological Yield ◽  
Cowpea Seed ◽  
Main Effects ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

The herbicides paraquat, trifluralin, and metolachlor were compared for efficacy of weed control in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] with and without cultivation as a supplemental strategy. Herbicides also were compared against a no cultivation-no herbicide treatment (control) and against cultivation without an herbicide. Cultivation had no significant effect on seed yield, biological yield, or harvest index of cowpea. Paraquat, applied before seeding but after emergence of weeds, was ineffective for weed control and usually did not change cowpea yield from that obtained without an herbicide. Trifluralin and metolachlor more than tripled cowpea seed yield compared with that obtained without an herbicide in 1988, when potential weed pressure was 886 g·m-2 (dry weight). The main effects of trifluralin and metolachlor were not significant for cowpea seed yield in 1989, when potential weed pressure was 319 g·m-2 (dry weight). However, in 1989, these two herbicides still increased cowpea seed yield compared with that of the control and increased net farm income by more than $300/ha compared with the income obtained from the control. Chemical names used 1,1'-dimethyl-4,4' -bipyridlnium salts (paraquat); 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenamine (trifluralin); 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6 -methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-l-methylethyl) acetamide (metolachlor).

scholarly journals Sensor-based mechanical weed control: Present state and prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 176 ◽  
pp. 105638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jannis Machleb ◽  
Gerassimos G. Peteinatos ◽  
Benjamin L. Kollenda ◽  
Dionisio Andújar ◽  
Roland Gerhards
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Present State ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

Increased seeding rate and multiple methods of mechanical weed control reduce weed biomass in a poorly competitive organic crop

2020 ◽  
Vol 245 ◽  
pp. 107648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr S. Alba ◽  
Lena D. Syrovy ◽  
Hema S.N. Duddu ◽  
Steven J. Shirtliffe
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Multiple Methods ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

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 Effects of Mechanical Weed Control in Barley-Pea Mixture on Colonization of Pea Seeds by Fungi, Part 2

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 2485-2492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Lejman ◽  
Rafał Ogórek ◽  
Piotr Sobkowicz
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Pea Seeds ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

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.;

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document