Could the dawn of Level 4 robotic weeders facilitate a revolution in ecological weed management?

Ecological weed management (EWM) considers that not all non-crop plants cause harm, and that non-harmful species ‘aliae plantae’ should be retained to provide multiple positive benefits. Only plants causing ‘significant harm’ are defined as weeds and should be controlled. However, this is difficult to achieve with current herbicide and mechanical weeding technologies. Robotic weeders may be able to facilitate EWM. Four Levels of robotic weeders are defined: Level 1 are row followers; Level 2 identify individual crop plants and weed around them; Level 3 individually identify all plants and individually kill all non-crop plants; Level 4 weeders individually distinguish crop plants, aliae plantae, and weeds and only kill the weeds, thus facilitating EWM. Currently only Levels 1–3 robotic weeders exist. The aim of proposing Level 4 robotic weeders is to highlight, particularly to roboticists, that the end goal of robotic weeding should not be crop monocultures, but biodiverse fields through EWM. It is envisaged that Level 4 robotic weeders would not just operate in vegetable crops, which are the current focus of Level 3 weeders, but in all crops, such as fruit trees, where they could, for example, control weeds in living mulches. It is therefore considered essential that weed scientists and roboticists collaborate to ensure that robotic weeders achieve EWM, not monocultures. If this vision can be realised, it could usher in a revolution in weed management.     

Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows

Weed control within crop rows is one of the main problems in organic farming. For centuries, different weed removal tools have been used to reduce weeds in the crop rows. Stimulated by the demand from organic farmers, research in several European countries over the last decade has focused on mechanisation using harrowing, torsion finger weeding and weeding with compressed air (Pneumat). Intelligent weeders are now being developed which offer more advanced ways to control weeds, including larger ones and to leave the crop plants unharmed. One of the first commercially available intelligent weeders, the Sarl Radis from France, has a simple crop detection system based on light interception, which guides a hoe in and out of the crop row, around the crop plants. The inclusion of innovative technologies, including advanced sensing and robotics, in combination with new cropping systems, might lead to a breakthrough in physical weed control in row crops leading to significant reductions, or even elimination, of the need for hand weeding.     

Herbicides – a two‐edged sword*

Summary Weeds cause yield losses and reductions in crop quality. Prior to the introduction of selective herbicides, the drudgery of manual weeding forced farmers to adhere to a suit of weed management tactics by carefully combining crop rotation, appropriate tillage and fallow systems. The introduction of selective herbicides in the late 1940s and the constant flow of new herbicides in the succeeding decades provided farmers with a new tool, ‘the chemical hoe’, putting them in a position to consider weed control more independently of the crop production system than hitherto. The reliance on herbicides for weed control, however, resulted in shifts in the weed flora and the selection of herbicide‐resistant biotypes. In the 1980s, the public concern about side‐effects of herbicides on the environment and human health resulted in increasingly strict registration requirements and, in some countries, political initiatives to reduce the use of pesticides were launched. Today, the number of new herbicides being introduced has decreased significantly and integrated weed management has become the guiding concept. Farmers also have the option of growing herbicide‐resistant crops where the biology of the crop has been adapted to tolerate herbicides considered safe to humans and environmentally benign. This paper discusses some of the recent developments in herbicide discovery, technology and fate, and sketches important future developments.     

Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems

Concern about potential increases in weed populations without the use of herbicides has limited the uptake of organic farming. However, as both public demands for organic produce and the profile of organic farming have increased in recent years, so too has the range of weed control options. Progress in cultural methods of weed control has included the use of novel weed-suppressing cover crops, and the identification of specific crop traits for weed suppression. Direct weed control has also seen developments, with new implements appearing on the market that could benefit in the future from sophisticated machine guidance and weed detection technology. Advances in novel techniques such as steaming have also been made. Many weed control operations in organic systems present the grower with conflicts, and both these and many of the most recent developments in organic weed control are reviewed. An increase in our understanding of weed biology and population dynamics underpins long-term improvements in sustainable weed control. The outcome of these studies will benefit conventional and organic growers alike. Emphasis is given to the need for flexibility and a combination of weed biology knowledge, cultural methods and direct weed control to maintain weed populations at manageable levels.     

Perspectives on transgenic,herbicide‐resistant crops in the United States almost 20 years after introduction

Herbicide‐resistant crops have had a profound impact on weed management. Most of the impact has been by glyphosate‐resistant maize, cotton, soybean and canola. Significant economic savings, yield increases and more efficacious and simplified weed management have resulted in widespread adoption of the technology. Initially, glyphosate‐resistant crops enabled significantly reduced tillage and reduced the environmental impact of weed management. Continuous use of glyphosate with glyphosate‐resistant crops over broad areas facilitated the evolution of glyphosate‐resistant weeds, which have resulted in increases in the use of tillage and other herbicides with glyphosate, reducing some of the initial environmental benefits of glyphosate‐resistant crops. Transgenic crops with resistance to auxinic herbicides, as well as to herbicides that inhibit acetolactate synthase, acetyl‐CoA carboxylase and hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase, stacked with glyphosate and/or glufosinate resistance, will become available in the next few years. These technologies will provide additional weed management options for farmers, but will not have all of the positive effects (reduced cost, simplified weed management, lowered environmental impact and reduced tillage) that glyphosate‐resistant crops had initially. In the more distant future, other herbicide‐resistant crops (including non‐transgenic ones), herbicides with new modes of action and technologies that are currently in their infancy (e.g. bioherbicides, sprayable herbicidal RNAi and/or robotic weeding) may affect the role of transgenic, herbicide‐resistant crops in weed management. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.     

Image-based weed recognition and control: Can it select for crop mimicry?

As highly adaptable plants, weeds have evolved numerous mechanisms to evade control in agroecosystems. For example, reliance on herbicides has resulted in widespread evolution of resistance in many species. Minimising weed adaptation is a major driver for integrated weed management strategies. Crop mimicry is a notable example of weed adaptation, where weed species evolve to avoid control by mimicking aspects of the crop phenotype. Visual selection by hand weeding has been documented to select for crop mimics that are difficult to distinguish from the crop at the vegetative stage. With recent advancements in weed recognition technologies, image-based weed recognition for in-crop, site-specific weed control is on the cusp of becoming widely adopted. Whilst the control methods used in site-specific weed control will be varied (e.g., spot spraying or lasers), they will share weed recognition technology. Visual selection via image-based deep learning represents a selection pressure for weeds that can evade detection by mimicking crops. This mimicry may reduce weed recognition accuracy and thus weed control efficacy over time and result in difficult to manage mimetic weed phenotypes. Therefore, it is timely to explore the potential for selection of crop mimics by image-based weed recognition algorithms.     

Using a selectivity index to evaluate logarithmic spraying in grass seed crops

BACKGROUND: Grass seed crops are minor crops that cannot support the development of selective herbicides for grass weed control in grass seed crops. An option is to screen for selective herbicides with the use of logarithmic spraying technology. The aim of this paper is to assess selectivity of various herbicides in grass seed crops by using dose–response curves. RESULTS: Six grass species were subjected to logarithmic spraying with 11 herbicides and with Poa pratensis L. as a weed. The ratio between the doses that caused 10% of damage to the crop and 90% of damage to the weed was used as a selectivity index. Compounds with selectivity indices above 2 can be safely used in a crop. The two ACCase herbicides clodinafop‐propargyl and fenoxaprop‐P‐ethyl and a mixture of the two ALS herbicides mesosulfuron and iodosulfuron could be used selectively to control P. pratensis in Festuca rubra L., although the selectivity indices in no instances were greater than the desired 2.0. CONCLUSION: The logarithmic sprayer can be a rapid screening tool for identifying compounds with favourable selectivity indices. Good experimental design is needed to alleviate rates being systematically distributed and confounded with growth rate and soil fertility gradients. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry     

Herbicide research and development: challenges and opportunities

The high adoption of chemical weed control and the broad range of solutions already available to manage most weed problems are significant hurdles to the development and launch of new herbicides. Business potentials are influenced by the high technical and biological standards provided by existing herbicides, as well as the intense competition in the marketplace. Other factors adding complexity are agronomic, structural and technological changes, including the introduction of herbicide‐tolerant crops, and the high costs of development for new active ingredients, mainly due to increasing regulatory requirements. In the light of increasing weed resistance to widely used herbicides, securing diversity in agronomy as well as weed management is a key to efficient crop production in future. In order to support this objective, new herbicides, preferably with new modes‐of‐action, will need to be discovered and developed.     

The increasing importance of herbicides in worldwide crop production

Herbicide use is increasingly being adopted around the world. Many developing countries (India, China, Bangladesh) are facing shortages of workers to hand weed fields as millions of people move from rural to urban areas. In these countries, herbicides are far cheaper and more readily available than labor for hand weeding. History shows that in industrializing countries in the past, including the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea, the same phenomenon has occurred—as workers have left agriculture, herbicides have been adopted. It is inevitable that herbicide use will increase in sub‐Saharan Africa, not only because millions of people are leaving rural areas, creating shortages of hand weeders, but also because of the need to increase crop yields. Hand weeding has never been a very efficient method of weed control—often performed too late and not frequently enough. Uncontrolled weeds have been a major cause of low crop yields in sub‐Saharan Africa for a long time. In many parts of the world, herbicides are being increasingly used to replace tillage in order to improve environmental conditions. In comparison with tillage, herbicide use reduces erosion, fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient run‐off and conserves water. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry     

Micro‐elevations in paddy fields affect the efficacy of mechanical weeding: Evaluation of weeding machines to control Monochoria vaginalis in herbicide‐free farming

Differences in local topography (micro‐elevation) within a paddy field that constitute a source of variability in agronomical indicators have not been considered thoroughly as a block factor in weed studies. This study investigated and evaluated the performance of weeding machines (weeders) in two herbicide‐free paddy fields that contained micro‐elevations. The plant density of Monochoria vaginalis, a typical and harmful paddy weed unless controlled with herbicides, was used as the indicator of the efficacy of the weeders. Among the three weeders that were tested, one suppressed M. vaginalis dramatically at low elevations and the others were less sensitive to micro‐elevation. For comparison across the fields, micro‐elevations at weed sampling locations were converted to the initial depth of water by using the records of hydrographs that had been set in each field. The relationship between the initial depth of water and the plant density of M. vaginalis was very clear with the use of the elevation‐sensitive weeder. Moreover, this relationship was valid, even with the less‐sensitive weeders. The finding that the greater the depth of water, the less the plant density was significant, even for M. vaginalis, a difficult aquatic paddy weed that was controlled with any of the weeders tested. Thus, micro‐elevation within a paddy field needs to be treated as a crucial block factor in weed‐sampling studies. A coarse survey of the level of a field and the installation of a hydrograph are recommended for a clear analysis of the background of weed control practices.     

New multiple-herbicide crop resistance and formulation technology to augment the utility of glyphosate

Glyphosate has performed long and well, but now some weed communities are shifting to populations that survive glyphosate, and growers need new weed management technologies to augment glyphosate performance in glyphosate-resistant crops. Unfortunately, most companies are not developing any new selective herbicides with new modes of action to fill this need. Fortunately, companies are developing new herbicide-resistant crop technologies to combine with glyphosate resistance and expand the utility of existing herbicides. One of the first multiple-herbicide-resistant crops will have a molecular stack of a new metabolically based glyphosate resistance mechanism with an active-site-based resistance to a broad spectrum of ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Additionally, new formulation technology called homogeneous blends will be used in conjunction with glyphosate and ALS-resistant crops. This formulation technology satisfies governmental regulations, so that new herbicide mixture offerings with diverse modes of action can be commercialized more rapidly and less expensively. Together, homogeneous blends and multiple-herbicide-resistant crops can offer growers a wider choice of herbicide mixtures at rates and ratios to augment glyphosate and satisfy changing weed management needs.     

Robotic weeding's false dawn? Ten requirements for fully autonomous mechanical weed management

While machines called weeding robots are now commercially available and many more designs are being actively researched, I contend that current machines are not truly robotic weeders, rather they are essentially self‐guiding vehicles carrying weeding tools. I consider true robotic weeders to be a far more difficult objective. While advances in robotics have been outstanding, the weeding component often appears to be an afterthought. I contend that the weeding is as complex as the robotics. A genuine weeding robot should be able to: (i) monitor the crop, weeds, weather and soil, (ii) decide when the crop should be weeded, (iii) choose the optimal weeder, (iv) take the weeder to the field, (v) adjust the weeder for optimal performance, (vi) continuously monitor the entire weeder for blockages and mechanical breakages and fix them in the field, (vii) continuously monitor and adjust the weeder's performance, (viii) return the weeder to the farmyard and (ix) clean, maintain and store the weeder, that is replace all human intervention. This ten‐point list both defines and is a guide to what is required for completely autonomous robotic weeding. Currently, this list is far beyond current technology and it may be decades before it is realisable. The aim of this study therefore was not to disparage the achievements of agricultural roboticists, rather it is to highlight the complexity and demands of mechanical weeding and therefore describe what is really required to create a true robotic weeder. I therefore hope it will guide and expedite research and lead to more rapid success for robotic weeding.     

Weed Problems in Food Crops in Indonesia

Abstract

Losses due to weeds in food crop production are discussed. Types of weeds differ from one crop to another; environmental conditions, crop management and other factors affect weed growth.

Hand weeding is practised on small farms, even in upland crops where weed problems are more complicated. Some experiments with herbicides on food crops have been introduced by various institutions. Due to the rising cost of labour, especially on large-scale mechanised farms, chemical weed control will become more important.

It is suggested that applied research in new methods of weed control as well as basic research in weed biology related to agriculture should be encouraged.     

The implications of spatially variable pre‐emergence herbicide efficacy for weed management

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of pre‐emergence herbicides within fields is spatially variable as a consequence of soil heterogeneity. We quantified the effect of soil organic matter on the efficacy of two pre‐emergence herbicides, flufenacet and pendimethalin, against Alopecurus myosuroides and investigated the implications of variation in organic matter for weed management using a crop–weed competition model.

RESULTS

Soil organic matter played a critical role in determining the level of control achieved. The high organic matter soil had more surviving weeds with higher biomass than the low organic matter soil. In the absence of competition, surviving plants recovered to produce the same amount of seed as if no herbicide had been applied. The competition model predicted that weeds surviving pre‐emergence herbicides could compensate for sublethal effects even when competing with the crop. The ED50 (median effective dose) was higher for weed seed production than seedling mortality or biomass. This difference was greatest on high organic matter soil.

CONCLUSION

These results show that the application rate of herbicides should be adjusted to account for within‐field variation in soil organic matter. The results from the modelling emphasised the importance of crop competition in limiting the capacity of weeds surviving pre‐emergence herbicides to compensate and replenish the seedbank. © 2017 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.     

Weed suppression by cover crops: comparative on‐farm experiments under integrated and organic conservation tillage

Cover crops are increasingly being used for weed suppression and to enhance the sustainability of agro‐ecosystems. However, the suitability of cover crops for weed suppression in integrated and organic conservation tillage systems is still poorly investigated. Therefore, a 2‐year field study at eight sites was conducted to test the weed suppressive potential of six legume‐based cover crops, with the aim to reduce herbicide input or mechanical weed management interventions. In all experiments, cover crops were directly sown after cereals before next year's main crop (grain maize or sunflower). The presence of cover crops caused a 96% to 100% reduction of weed dry matter at the four sites managed under integrated production, while effects were lower at the four sited managed under organic production, ranging from 19% to 87%. Cover crops that covered soil quickly and which produced much dry matter had the best weed suppressive potential. However, their weed suppressing effect was difficult to predict, as it depended on the year of the investigation, experimental site, cover crop species, the speed of soil cover in autumn and the density of the resulting mulch layer in spring. The study demonstrated that cover crops are a useful tool to suppress weeds under integrated and organic conservation tillage practices. Our recommendation for supporting weed management in conservation tillage systems is to use locally adapted cover crops that have rapid establishment, good soil coverage and high dry matter production. However, additional weed management measures are required for reliable weed control under on‐farm conditions.     

Development of chemical weed control and integrated weed management in China

More than 200 species of weeds are infesting main crop fields in China, among which approximately 30 species are major weeds causing great crop yield losses. About 35.8 million hectares of crop fields are heavily infested by weeds and the annual reduction of crop yields is 12.3–16.5% (weighted average). Along with rural economic development, approximately 50% of the main crop fields undergo herbicide application. Chemical weed control has changed cultural practices to save weeding labor in rice, wheat, maize, soybeans and cotton. At the same time, continuous use of the same herbicides has caused weed shift problems and weed resistance to herbicides. Consequently, integrated weed management in main crops is being developed.     

近年我国农田杂草防控中的突出问题与治理对策

我国田园杂草有1 400多种,严重危害的130余种,恶性杂草37种。我国杂草发生面积约9 246.7万hm2次,防治面积1.04亿hm2次,挽回粮食损失2 699万t,每年主粮作物仍有近300万t产量损失。杂草防控中的突出问题是:杂草群落演替,难治杂草种群增加;除草剂单一使用,杂草抗药性发展迅速;除草剂对作物药害频发,影响种植结构调整;新除草剂创制能力不足,难以满足不同作物田除草需求;农村劳动力短缺,杂草防控更依赖于化学防治。解决上述问题,应实施以下对策:加强杂草发生危害的监测预警,科学轮换使用除草剂,推广除草剂减量与替代技术,加快新除草剂研制及推广应用,加速耐除草剂作物商业化进程,推进统防统治及农民培训。     

Evidence of synergy with ‘stacked’ intrarow cultivation tools

Intrarow cultivation efficacy is often low and highly variable. As the mechanisms affecting weed mortality likely vary by tool, several companies have developed cultivators with the ability to use several different intrarow tools at once. We evaluated the potential for such ‘stacking’ of cultivation tools to increase efficacy. We used different sequences of torsion weeders, finger weeders and row harrows in a test crop of maize with surrogate weeds, Sinapis alba and Panicum miliaceum. Most tool combinations resulted in an additive increase in efficacy compared with the individual tools, but the combination of torsion–finger–row harrow demonstrated a synergistic increase in efficacy. In separate experiments, forward speed, soil moisture and weed size were negatively correlated with efficacy, but the torsion–finger–row harrow combination continued to demonstrate a synergistic increase in efficacy compared with the individual tools in 7 of 11 cases. The drawback was high crop mortality (16.0 ± 1.16%); further mechanistic research is needed to reduce crop mortality while maintaining high mean efficacy, through tool design, adjustment and cultural factors.     

杂草管理的分子生物学途径(英文)

全球气候变化有利于外来杂草的入侵与传播,因为外来种通常可以快速适应环境。除草剂和抗除草剂作物的滥用使抗性杂草严重威胁现代农业的发展,这就需要新技术有效缓解当前的和未来的杂草问题。分子生物学是研究DNA、RNA以及蛋白质分子之间相互作用的科学,该技术已在杂草科学中广泛应用,如决定杂草抗药性机制、抗性杂草的起源、杂草基因型和基因流动的传播、杂草特征的生态适应与进化发展等。这些信息有利于建立可持续发展的杂草管理方案。分子生物技术也具有可直接用于防除杂草的潜力,如可用于开发新的除草措施的技术,包括宏基因组学、病毒诱导基因沉默、转基因雌性不育性等。     

Are herbicides a once in a century method of weed control?

The efficacy of any pesticide is an exhaustible resource that can be depleted over time. For decades, the dominant paradigm – that weed mobility is low relative to insect pests and pathogens, that there is an ample stream of new weed control technologies in the commercial pipeline, and that technology suppliers have sufficient economic incentives and market power to delay resistance – supported a laissez faire approach to herbicide resistance management. Earlier market data bolstered the belief that private incentives and voluntary actions were sufficient to manage resistance. Yet, there has been a steady growth in resistant weeds, while no new commercial herbicide modes of action (MOAs) have been discovered in 30 years. Industry has introduced new herbicide tolerant crops to increase the applicability of older MOAs. Yet, many weed species are already resistant to these compounds. Recent trends suggest a paradigm shift whereby herbicide resistance may impose greater costs to farmers, the environment, and taxpayers than earlier believed. In developed countries, herbicides have been the dominant method of weed control for half a century. Over the next half‐century, will widespread resistance to multiple MOAs render herbicides obsolete for many major cropping systems? We suggest it would be prudent to consider the implications of such a low‐probability, but high‐cost development. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry