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.     

Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities

The effects of stale seedbed preparations and several weed control methods on the emergence of weeds in lettuce were studied. The specific goal was to evaluate the use of a stale seedbed in combination with chemical or mechanical weed control methods in the field. Depending on location and year, stale seedbed preparations followed by weed control prior to planting reduced the amount of weeds during crop growth by 43–83%. Control of the emerged seedlings after a stale seedbed preparation was more effective with glyphosate than with a rotary harrow. Covering the rotary harrow during control to prevent light reaching the soil improved its effect on the weed density during crop growth in two of 3 years. Radiation with far red light (FR) did not reduce the number of emerging weeds in this study. Mechanical control by finger weeder, torsion weeder and hoe was applied without stale seedbed preparations. These measures reduced the weed densities by 88–99%, compared with the untreated control and were more effective than chemical weed control with carbetamide and chlorpropham. The results show that the stale seedbed technique in combination with mechanical control of emerging weeds can reduce the weed population during crop growth as effectively as chemical control. The technique may therefore help reduce the use of herbicides in lettuce crops in the future.     

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.     

Relationship between speed, soil movement into the cereal row and intra-row weed control efficacy by weed harrowing

Field trials were carried out at a single Danish and two Spanish locations. In Denmark, winter wheat was sown at 24‐cm row spacing allowing hoeing in the inter‐row area. Hoeing speeds of 2, 5 and 8 km h^?1 were tested at the end of tillering, at the beginning of stem elongation or on both occasions. The crop was harrowed immediately after hoeing at the same speed. At the Spanish locations the winter barley was sown at a 12‐cm row spacing and harrowed only, at either pre‐emergence plus post‐emergence, or once post‐emergence at mid‐tillering at 2, 4, 6 and 8 km h^?1. The depth of the soil layer thrown into the cereal row was measured at all locations. This layer ranged between 0.4 and 1.4 cm, depending on the site and on the treatment, but was generally higher following a single harrow treatment at all sites. The soil layer only tended to increase with faster speeds at the Danish location. On a more sandy soil and soil rolled prior to treatment, less soil was thrown into the cereal row. When two hoe + harrowing treatments were made, a finer soil structure was achieved. However, this did not affect the weed control. At the Danish location, initial intra‐row weeding efficacy of Brassica napus, based on plant number before and 7 days after treatment, was found to be low (21–41%) but increased to 74–79% when assessed after 45 days. Partial burial and bending of B. napus, together with crop competition, probably suppressed weed growth and enhanced final mortality. Uprooting was probably a more important cause of mortality for Stellaria media. At the Spanish locations, weeding efficacy of Papaver rhoeas was similar, ranging between 58% and 83% and this was achieved soon after harrowing. A thicker soil layer did not result in a greater weed kill. It was therefore suggested that burial alone could not be the main factor responsible for weed control in any of the cases studied. No reduction in wheat biomass, measured at the end of May, was found with increasing speed, or with repeated passes of the harrow. The results suggested that faster harrowing, which is economically more attractive for farmers, could be recommended. The soil layer thrown into the row was not found to be a useful parameter to predict the weed control efficacy in the cases presented.     

Modelling population dynamics of Sinapis arvensis in organically grown spring wheat production systems

Although we know that alterations in crop density, crop spatial pattern and inclusion of more selective weed control can improve weed suppression for organic growers, it is unknown whether these result in changes to the weed seedbank that increase cropping system profitability over time. Data collected from field trials conducted in 2009 and 2010 in Maine, USA, comparing regional grower practices (Standard) with management that aimed to (i) facilitate better physical weed control through the use of wide row spacing and inter‐row cultivation (Wide) or (ii) enhance crop–weed competition through increased seeding rate and narrow inter‐row spacing (Narrow HD), were used to construct a matrix population model with an economic sub‐model. Using field measurements of grain yield and weed survival and fecundity, we investigated the lasting implications of employing alternative organic spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) production practices on Sinapis arvensis population dynamics. In most scenarios, the model indicated that regional production practices were not sufficient to prevent an increase in the weed seedbank, even with excellent weed control. The two alternative methods, on the other hand, were able to limit weed population growth when initial densities were low or cultivation efficacy was >80%. Due to higher seed costs in the Narrow HD system, net returns were still lower after 10 years of simulation in this system compared with wide rows with cultivation, despite a lower weed seedbank.     

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.     

Evaluation of finger weeder safety and efficacy for intra-row weed removal in irrigated field crops

Increased demand for pesticide-free food and the development of herbicide-resistant weed populations have created a need for non-chemical weed-control tools. A candidate mechanical tool for controlling weeds in the seeding line (intra-row zone) is the finger weeder. This study thus aimed to evaluate the safety and weed-control efficacy of the finger weeder in various irrigated field crops. Eight field trials were conducted in processing tomato, sweet corn, sunflower, cotton, and beetroot over 2 years. The finger weeder treatments were applied as the sole weed-control method (single or double treatments) and in combination with herbicides. A mini meta-analysis was used to evaluate the overall effect of the finger weeder treatments on crop stand and yield and on weed control efficacy. Weed density in the control not treated with herbicides nor a finger weeder ranged between 2 and 62 weeds m⁻². The finger weeder treatments resulted in a significant reduction in weed density, which ranged between 40% and 90%. The weed density following the double finger weeder treatment was not significantly different from that for the conventional herbicide-based treatment (p = 0.32) and could therefore be considered as an effective environmentally friendly alternative. Furthermore, a single FW treatment integrated with herbicide application gave better weed control than the conventional herbicide treatment (p = 0.04). This treatment was safe for the crops with no significant stand (p = 0.19) or yield (p = 0.29) reductions compared to commercial treatment. The results of this study demonstrate the promise of the finger weeder as an effective tool within integrated weed management systems for conventional agro-systems. The tool offers a rational weed-control solution for sustainable systems under irrigation.     

Robotic weeders can improve weed control options for specialty crops

Specialty crop herbicides are not a priority for the agrochemical industry, and many of these crops do not have access to effective herbicides. High‐value fruit and vegetable crops represent small markets and high potential liability in the case of herbicide‐induced crop damage. Meanwhile, conventional and organic specialty crop producers are experiencing labor shortages and higher manual weeding costs. Robotic weeders are promising new weed control tools for specialty crops, because they are cheaper to develop and, with fewer environmental and human health risks, are less regulated than herbicides. Now is the time for greater investment in robotic weeders as new herbicides are expensive to develop and few in number, organic crops need better weed control technology and governments are demanding reduced use of pesticides. Public funding of fundamental research on robotic weeder technology can help improve weed and crop recognition, weed control actuators, and expansion of weed science curricula to train students in this technology. Robotic weeders can expand the array of tools available to specialty crop growers. However, the development of robotic weeders will require a broader recognition that these tools are a viable path to create new weed control tools for specialty crops. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry     

Development of herbicide resistance in weeds in a crop rotation with acetolactate synthase‐tolerant sugar beets under varying selection pressure

The development of acetolactate synthase (ALS) tolerant sugar beet provides new opportunities for weed control in sugar beet cultivation. The system consists of an ALS?inhibiting herbicide (foramsulfuron + thiencarbazone‐methyl) and a herbicide‐tolerant sugar beet variety. Previously, the use of ALS‐inhibitors in sugar beet was limited due to the susceptibility of the crop to active ingredients from this mode of action. The postulated benefits of cultivation of the ALS‐tolerant sugar beet are associated with potential risks. Up to now, with no relevant proportion of herbicide‐tolerant crops in Germany, ALS‐inhibitors are used in many different crops. An additional use in sugar beet cultivation could increase the selection pressure for ALS‐resistant weeds. To evaluate the impact of varying intensity of ALS‐inhibitor use on two weed species (Alopecurus myosuroides and Tripleurospermum perforatum) in a crop rotation, field trials were conducted in Germany in two locations from 2014 to 2017. Weed densities, genetic resistance background and crop yields were annually assessed. The results indicate that it is possible to control ALS‐resistant weeds with an adapted herbicide strategy in a crop rotation including herbicide‐tolerant sugar beet. According to the weed density and species, the herbicide strategy must be extended to graminicide treatment in sugar beet, and a residual herbicide must be used in winter wheat. The spread of resistant biotypes in our experiments could not be attributed to the integration of herbicide‐tolerant cultivars, although the application of ALS‐inhibitors promoted the development of resistant weed populations. Annual use of ALS‐inhibitors resulted in significant high weed densities and caused seriously yield losses. Genetic analysis of surviving weed plants confirmed the selection of ALS‐resistant biotypes.     

Winter annual grassy weeds increase over‐winter mortality in autumn‐sown wheat

Over‐winter mortality, that is, winterkill, reduces cereal crop competitive ability and yield. While management and environmental variables are known to affect winterkill, the extent to which weeds contribute to increased winterkill is largely unknown. Winter annual weeds may increase winterkill through resource competition and by increasing incidence of and damage from plant pathogens that cause winterkill. We evaluated the impact of summer annual (Avena fatua) and winter annual (Bromus tectorum) weeds on the over‐winter survival rate of winter wheat over three winters, during which plots were covered with snow. Pink snow mould (Microdochium nivale), a winterkill pathogen known to infect B. tectorum and winter wheat, was common in wheat stands. In weed‐free treatments, mortality rates were initially near zero, but increased by nearly 45% in each subsequent winter, presumably due to an increase in snow mould disease in continuously cropped winter wheat. Whereas A. fatua infestation had no impact on crop survival rates, winter wheat survival in B. tectorum‐infested plots was 50% less than the weed‐free control in the second and third years of this study. Among B. tectorum‐infested plots, winter wheat over‐winter survival declined with increasing weed seed produced in the previous summer. Overall, this study demonstrated that winter annual weed infestations can reduce crop stand densities below replanting thresholds by reducing fall‐sown cereal winter survival. The effects of winter annual weeds on winter wheat may be meditated by increased proliferation of snow mould disease.     

Tillage and herbicide treatments with inter‐row cultivation influence weed densities and yield of three industrial crops

Field experiments were conducted in northern Greece in 2003 and 2004 to evaluate effects of tillage regimes (moldboard plowing, chisel plowing, and rotary tilling), cropping sequences (continuous cotton, cotton‐sugar beet rotation, and continuous tobacco) and herbicide treatments with inter‐row hand hoeing on weed population densities. Total weed densities were not affected by tillage treatment except that of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus‐galli), which increased only in moldboard plowing treated plots during 2003. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) densities were reduced in continuous cotton, while purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus), E. crus‐galli, S. nigrum, and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) densities were reduced in tobacco. A. retroflexus and S. nigrum were effectively controlled by all herbicide treatments with inter‐row hand hoeing, whereas E. crus‐galli was effectively reduced by herbicides applied to cotton and tobacco. S. halepense density reduction was a result of herbicide applied to tobacco with inter‐row hand hoeing. Yield of all crops was higher under moldboard plowing and herbicide treatments. Pre‐sowing and pre‐emergence herbicide treatments in cotton and pre‐transplant in tobacco integrated with inter‐row cultivation resulted in efficient control of annual weed species and good crop yields. These observations are of practical relevance to crop selection by farmers in order to maintain weed populations at economically acceptable densities through the integration of various planting dates, sustainable herbicide use and inter‐row cultivation; tools of great importance in integrated weed management systems.     

Consequences of narrow crop row spacing and delayed Echinochloa colona and Trianthema portulacastrum emergence for weed growth and crop yield loss in maize

Echinochloa colona and Trianthema portulacastrum are weeds of maize that cause significant yield losses in the Indo‐Gangetic Plains. Field experiments were conducted in 2009 and 2010 to determine the influence of row spacing (15, 25 and 35 cm) and emergence time of E. colona and T. portulacastrum (0, 15, 25, 35, 45 and 55 days after maize emergence; DAME) on weed growth and productivity of maize. A season‐long weed‐free treatment and a weedy control were also used to estimate maize yield and weed seed production. Crop row spacing as well as weed emergence time had a significant influence on plant height, shoot biomass and seed production of both weed species and grain yield of maize in both years. Delay in emergence of weeds resulted in less plant height, shoot biomass and seed production. However, increase in productivity of maize was observed by delay in weed emergence. Likewise, growth of both weed species was less in narrow row spacing (15 cm) of maize, as compared with wider rows (25 and 35 cm). Maximum seed production of both weeds was observed in weedy control plots, where there was no competition with maize crop and weeds were in rows 35 cm apart. Nevertheless, maximum plant height, shoot biomass and seed production of both weed species were observed in 35 cm rows, when weeds emerged simultaneously with maize. Both weed species produced only 3–5 seeds per plant, when they were emerged at 55 DAME in crop rows spaced at 15 cm. Infestation of both weeds at every stage of crop led to significant crop yield loss in maize. Our results suggested that narrow row spacing and delay in weed emergence led to reduced weed growth and seed production and enhanced maize grain yield and therefore could be significant constituents of integrated weed management strategies in maize.     

Crop–weed competition rather than temperature limits the population establishment of two annual C4 weeds at the edge of their northern range

Climate change is predicted to affect range expansion of harmful C₄ weeds into the boreal region, given that they are able to successfully colonise both C₃ and C₄ crops. We studied the impact of a 3°C elevation in temperature on the establishment and maintenance of populations of two annual C₄ weeds (Amaranthus retroflexus and Echinochloa crus‐galli) with and without a competing C₃ (barley) or C₄ (maize) crop. Data obtained from field and glasshouse experiments were modelled using a periodic matrix population model. Competition of a weed with a crop appeared to be a more important factor for limiting the maintenance of weed populations than elevation in temperature, as neither of the weed species was able to maintain populations in competition with crops. Even an increase in the frequency of warm years did not result in viable weed populations establishing. However, A. retroflexus was able to form persistent populations in competition with maize when released from competition every fifth year. Simulations parameterised from glasshouse data predicted that both weed species would persist without competition in the current climate, whereas simulations parameterised from field data suggested only A. retroflexus to be able to persist. These results demonstrate that competition affects the range expansion of arable weed species more than elevation in temperature, necessitating the inclusion of crop–weed interactions in models of range shifts as a consequence of climate change.     

Reducing tillage intensity affects the cumulative emergence dynamics of annual grass weeds in winter cereals

Annual grass weeds such as Apera spica‐venti and Vulpia myuros are promoted in non‐inversion tillage systems and winter cereal‐based crop rotations. Unsatisfactory weed control in these conditions is often associated with a poor understanding of the emergence pattern of these weed species. The aim of this study was to investigate, understand and model the cumulative emergence patterns of A. spica‐venti, V. myuros and Poa annua in winter cereals grown in three primary tillage regimes: (i) mouldboard ploughing, (ii) pre‐sowing tine cultivation to 8–10 cm soil depth and (iii) direct drilling. Direct drilling delayed the cumulative emergence of A. spica‐venti and V. myuros (counted together) in contrast with ploughing, while the emergence pattern of P. annua was unaffected by the type of tillage system. The total density of emerged weed seedlings varied between the tillage systems and years with a higher total emergence seen under direct drilling, followed by pre‐sowing tine cultivation and ploughing. The emergence patterns of all species were differently influenced by the tillage systems, suggesting that under direct drilling, in which these species occur simultaneously, management interventions should first and foremost consider that A. spica‐venti and V. myuros emerge over a longer period to avoid control failures.     

Investigating the selectivity of weed harrowing with new methods

In six field experiments on post‐emergence weed harrowing in spring barley, the effects of row spacing, timing, direction and orientation on crop/weed selectivity were investigated. The efficacies of increasing intensities of harrowing generated either by increasing number of passes or increasing driving speed were also tested. Selectivity was defined as the relationship between crop burial in soil immediately after treatment and weed control. To estimate crop burial, digital image analysis was used in order to make objective estimations. The study showed that narrow row spacing decreased selectivity in a late crop growth stage, whereas row spacing in the range 5.3–24 cm had no effects at an early growth stage. Harrowing across rows decreased selectivity in one out of two experiments. Whether repeated passes with the harrow were carried out in the same orientation along the rows or in alternative orientations forth and back was unimportant. There were indications that a high harrowing intensity produced by a single pass at high speed gave a lower selectivity than a similar intensity produced by several passes at a low speed. Impacts on selectivity, however, were small and only significant at high degrees of weed control. Timing had no significant impact on selectivity.     

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.     

Germination rates of weedy radish populations (Raphanus spp.) altered by crop‐wild hybridisation,not human‐mediated changes to soil moisture

Cultivated plants are known to readily hybridise with their wild relatives, sometimes forming populations with weedier life‐history strategies than their progenitors. Due to altered precipitation patterns from human‐induced global climate change, crop‐wild hybrid populations may have new and unpredictable environmental tolerances relative to parental populations, which would further challenge farming and land‐management weed control strategies. To recognise the role of seed dormancy variation in weed invasion, we compared seedbank dynamics of two cross‐type populations (wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum, and crop‐wild hybrid radish, R. raphanistrum × R. sativus) across a soil moisture gradient. In a seed‐burial experiment, we assessed relative rates of seed germination, dormancy and seed mortality over two years across cross types (crop‐wild hybrid or wild) and watering treatments (where water was withheld, equal to annual rainfall, or double annual rainfall). Weekly population censuses in 2012 and 2013 assessed the frequency and timing of seedling emergence within a growing season. Generally, germination rates were two times higher and seed dormancy was 58% lower in hybrid versus wild populations. Surprisingly, experimental soil moisture conditions did not determine seedbank dynamics over time. Yet, seed bank dynamics changed between years, potentially related to different amounts of annual rainfall. Thus, variation in seedbank dynamics may be driven by crop‐wild hybridisation rates and, potentially, annual variation in soil moisture conditions.     

Influence of intra-row cruciferous surrogate weed growth on crop yield in organic spring cereals

In Northern Europe, inter-row hoeing has become a popular tactic for controlling weeds in organic cereals. Hoeing is highly effective and can be implemented from crop emergence until stem elongation to maintain a nearly weed-free inter-row zone. However, hoeing has a lesser effect on weeds growing in the intra-row zone, where crop–weed proximity results in heightened competition. In the hoed cereal system, it is investigated whether tall-growing, competitive, cruciferous weeds in the intra-row zone affect crop biomass, yield and thousand kernel weight (TKW). An additive experimental design is employed to enable the fitting of rectangular hyperbolas, describing and quantifying the effects of increasing intra-row surrogate weed density on crop growth parameters. Regressions were studied under the influence of crop (spring barley and spring wheat), row spacing (narrow [12.5 or 15.0 cm] and wide [25.0 cm]) and nitrogen rate (50 and 100 kg NH₄-N/ha). Cruciferous surrogate weeds were found to impact crop yield and quality severely. For example, ten intra-row plants/m² of surrogate weed Sinapis alba reduced grains yields by 7%–14% in spring barley and by 7%–32% in spring wheat with yield losses becoming markedly greater in wheat compared to barley as weed density increases. Compared to wheat, barley limited yield and quality losses and suppressed intra-row weed growth more. Row spacing did not have a consistent effect on crop or weed parameters; in one of six experiments, the 25 cm row spacing reduced yields and increased intra-row weed biomass in wheat. Nitrogen rate did not affect crop or weed parameters. Results warrant the implementation of additional tactics to control intra-row weeds and limit crop losses.     

Reducing intrarow weed numbers in row crops by means of a biennial cultivation system

Intrarow weed emergence in row crops can be reduced by means of a biennial cultivation system that is based on an exhaustion of the weed seedbank in the upper soil layer of crop‐free bands established in a preceding cereal crop, year I, before the row crop, year II. In this study, a series of field experiments is presented focusing more specifically on the influence of prevention of weed seed shedding and of different cultivation tactics in the system on intrarow weed emergence in the bands in year II. As the system excludes inverting soil tillage between years I and II, the prevention of weed seed shedding in year I turned out to be a key factor in achieving the desired effect of the system. This was seen with spring barley grown in year I, but not with winter wheat, where the system actually resulted in an increase in intrarow weed numbers in spite of the measures taken in year I. Cultivating the crop‐free bands in spring barley in year I with conventional goose‐foot shares in order to enhance seed germination and mortality further had no significant effects regardless of time and intensity. Results from two other experiments, in which freshly shed weed seeds were incorporated into the soil, supported the finding that cultivating the bands was of no advantage.     

Farm‐scale evaluation of herbicide band application integrated with inter‐row mechanical weeding for maize production in four European regions

To promote integrated weed management (IWM) implementation in Europe, robust evidence on the sustainability of such tools and strategies is needed to motivate their adoption by stakeholders. This can only be achieved through assessing and validating them at real farm scale and using existing farm equipment, under diverse climatic and soil conditions representative of European agriculture. In 2013 and 2014, 12 on‐farm experiments (i.e. real field conditions on commercial farms, with natural weed flora) were conducted in four important European grain maize‐producing regions comparing the efficacy of herbicide band application integrated with inter‐row mechanical weeding as a potential IWM tool with the conventional broadcast herbicide application (CON) used by the farms. The IWM tools tested were as follows: (i) early post‐emergence herbicide band application combined with hoeing, followed by a second hoeing in southern Germany, (ii) early post‐emergence herbicide band application followed by hoeing in eastern Hungary and central Slovenia and (iii) pre‐emergence herbicide band application followed by hoeing in northern Italy. Herbicide band application integrated with hoeing provided good and partial weed control along and between maize rows respectively. No significant yield differences were detected between IWM and CON. IWM greatly reduced herbicide input and was economically sustainable over the duration of this study with no significant difference in gross margin compared with CON in all cases. This IWM tool could therefore be considered for implementation in European maize systems.