The Experts below are selected from a list of 63753 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Roland Gerhards - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
camera steered mechanical Weed Control in sugar beet maize and soybean
Precision Agriculture, 2018Co-Authors: Christoph Kunz, Jonas Feli Webe, Gerassimos G Peteinatos, Markus Sokefeld, Roland GerhardsAbstract:In sugar beet, maize and soybean, Weeds are usually Controlled by herbicides uniformly applied across the whole field. Due to restrictions in herbicide use and negative side effects, mechanical Weeding plays a major role in integrated Weed management (IWM). In 2015 and 2016, eight field experiments were conducted to test the efficacy of an OEM Claas 3-D stereo camera® in combination with an Einbock Row-Guard® hoe for Controlling Weeds. Ducks-foot blades in the inter-row were combined with four different mechanical intra-row Weeding elements in sugar beet, maize and soybean and a band sprayer in sugar beet. Average Weed densities in the untreated Control plots were from 12 to 153 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Thlapsi arvense being the most abundant Weed species. Camera steered hoeing resulted in 78% Weed Control efficacy compared to 65% using machine hoeing with manual guidance. Mechanical intra-row elements Controlled up to 79% of the Weeds in the crop rows. Those elements did not cause significant crop damage except for the treatment with a rotary harrow in maize in 2016. Weed Control efficacy was highest in the herbicide treatments with almost 100% followed by herbicide band-applications combined with inter-row hoeing. Mechanical Weed Control treatments increased white sugar yield by 39%, maize biomass yield by 43% and soybean grain yield by 58% compared to the untreated Control in both years. However, yield increase was again higher with chemical Weed Control. In conclusion, camera guided Weed hoeing has improved efficacy and selectivity of mechanical Weed Control in sugar beet, maize and soybean.
-
evaluation of two chemical Weed Control systems in sugar beet in germany and the russian federation
Plant Soil and Environment, 2016Co-Authors: K Bezhin, Hansjoachim Santel, Roland GerhardsAbstract:Roundup Ready® sugar beets are widely grown in the USA since their market introduction in 2005. The system has proven to be cost-efficient and reliable. However, the negative social image among consumers and politicians has prohibited the adoption of this technology in Europe. Seven field experiments were conducted over three years in Germany and the Russian Federation to compare Weed Control efficacy and sugar beet yields of post-emergent glyphosate applications with conventional selective herbicides. Although Weed infestations at the Russian sites were higher than in Germany, Weed Control efficacies were similar at both locations ranging between 78% and 100%. Glyphosate applications resulted in significantly higher Weed Control efficacies than the conventional herbicides in four out of 7 experiments. In five experiments, a single glyphosate application gave equal Weed Control efficacy as two and three glyphosate applications. White sugar yield was always higher in the Weed Control treatments than in the untreated plots. There was no yield difference between treatments based on glyphosate and conventional herbicide applications in 6 out of 7 experiments. The results demonstrate a slight benefit of the glyphosate-based Weed Control program compared to the conventional herbicide system in terms of Weed Control efficacy.
-
chemical and mechanical Weed Control in soybean glycine max
Julius-Kühn-Archiv, 2016Co-Authors: Jonas Feli Webe, Christoph Kunz, Roland GerhardsAbstract:In this study we investigated the possibility of chemical and mechanical Weed Control strategies in soybean. Soybean field experiments were carried out in 2013 and 2014 in Southern Germany. Five treatments including common herbicide mixtures and four mechanical Weed Control treatments, implementing a harrow and a hoe, were tested at different locations. In the herbicide experiments two treatments were applied by PRE emergence herbicides (metribuzin, clomazone, dimethenamid and metribuzin, flufenacet, clomazone) and another two treatments were sprayed with a combination of PRE + POST emergence herbicides (metribuzin, flufenacet, thifensulfuron and pendimethalin, thifensulfuron, bentazone, cycloxydim). Furthermore, a POST herbicide treatment was implemented (thifensulfuron, bentazone, thifensulfuron and fluazifop-P-butyl). In the mechanical Weed Control experiments, treatments were: three times hoeing, PRE emergence harrowing plus three times hoeing, hoeing and harrowing in rotation or three times harrowing. In both experiments an untreated Control was included. A 90% Weed Control efficacy and 23% yield increase was observed in the POST herbicide treatment. PRE + POST treatments resulted in 92% to 99% Weed Control efficiency and 15% yield increase compared to the untreated Control. In the mechanical Weed Control experiments the combination of PRE emergence harrowing and POST emergence hoeing resulted in 82% Weed Control efficiency and 34% higher yield compared to the untreated Control. Less Weed Control efficiency (72%) was observed in the harrow treatment, leading to 20% higher yield compared to the Control. The suitability of both strategies for implementation in “Integrated Weed Management” has been investigated. Chemische und mechanische Unkrautkontrolle in Sojabohne ( Glycine max ) In den Jahren 2013 und 2014 wurden Feldversuche mit chemischen und mechanischen Strategien zur Unkrautkontrolle in Sojabohnen angelegt. Die chemischen Experimente setzten sich aus funf Herbizidvarianten und einer Kontrolle zusammen. In zwei der Varianten wurden Vorauflaufherbiziden mit den Wirkstoffen Metribuzin, Clomazone und Dimethenamid (Variante 1) und einer Kombination aus Metribuzin, Flufenacet und Clomazone (Variante 2) eingesetzt. Zwei weitere Varianten beinhalteten Herbizide aus dem Vor- und Nachauflauf mit den Wirkstoffen Metribuzin, Flufenacet und Thifensulfuron (Variante 3) sowie Pendimethalin, Thifensulfuron, Bentazon und Cycloxydim (Variante 4). Die funfte Variante beinhaltete eine reine Nachauflaufstrategie mit den Wirkstoffen Thifensulfuron, Bentazon, Thifensulfuron und Fluazifop-Pbutyl. In den mechanischen Experimenten wurde in Variante 1 drei Hackuberfahrten durchgefuhrt. In den weiteren Varianten wurde entweder im Vorauflauf gestriegelt und anschliesenden ebenfalls dreimalig gehackt (Variante 2), die Hacke und der Striegel im Nachauflauf abwechselnd eingesetzt (Variante 3) oder ausschlieslich der Striegel zur Unkrautkontrolle verwendet (Variante 4). Zudem wurde eine Kontrollvariante in der die Unkrauter von Hand reguliert (Variante 5) wurden und eine Variante ohne jegliche Unkrautkontrolle durchgefuhrt (Variante 6). Eine Effizienz in Bezug auf die Unkrautkontrolle von 90 % konnte in den Nachauflaufherbiziden beobachtet werden. Die Varianten mit Vorauflaufherbiziden und den Kombinationen aus Vor- und Nachauflaufherbiziden zeigten Werte von 92 % bis 99 % verglichen mit der unbehandelten Kontrolle. Der Ertragszuwachs in der Nachauflaufvariante betrug 23 % wahrend in den Varianten mit Kombination aus Vor- und Nachauflauf ein Ertragszuwachs von 15 % verglichen zu unbehandelten Kontrolle erfasst wurde. In den Versuchen mit mechanischer Unkrautkontrolle zeigte die Variante aus Vorauflaufstriegeln mit anschliesend dreimaligem Hacken im Nachauflauf einen Bekampfungserfolg von 82 % und eine Ertragssteigerung von 34 % verglichen mit der Kontrollvariante. Bei dem Einsatz des Stiegels (Variante 4) konnte eine Unkrautkontrolle von 72 % bei einer Ertragssteigerung von 20 % beobachtet werden.
-
benefits of precision farming technologies for mechanical Weed Control in soybean and sugar beet comparison of precision hoeing with conventional mechanical Weed Control
Agronomy, 2015Co-Authors: Christoph Kunz, Jonas Feli Webe, Roland GerhardsAbstract:Weed infestations and associated yield losses require effective Weed Control measures in soybean and sugar beet. Besides chemical Weed Control, mechanical Weeding plays an important role in integrated Weed management systems. Field experiments were conducted at three locations for soybean in 2013 and 2014 and at four locations for sugar beet in 2014 to investigate if automatic steering technologies for inter-row Weed hoeing using a camera or RTK-GNSS increase Weed Control efficacy, efficiency and crop yield. Treatments using precision farming technologies were compared with conventional Weed Control strategies. Weed densities in the experiments ranged from 15 to 154 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare, Matricaria chamomilla and Lamium purpureum being the most abundant species. Weed hoeing using automatic steering technologies reduced Weed densities in soybean by 89% and in sugar beet by 87% compared to 85% Weed Control efficacy in soybean and sugar beet with conventional Weeding systems. Speed of Weed hoeing could be increased from 4 km h−1 with conventional hoes to 7 and 10 km·h−1, when automatic steering systems were used. Precision hoeing technologies increased soybean yield by 23% and sugar beet yield by 37%. After conventional hoeing and harrowing, soybean yields were increased by 28% and sugar beet yield by 26%.
-
Benefits of Precision Farming Technologies for Mechanical Weed Control in Soybean and Sugar Beet—Comparison of Precision Hoeing with Conventional Mechanical Weed Control
Agronomy, 2015Co-Authors: Christoph Kunz, Jonas Felix Weber, Roland GerhardsAbstract:Weed infestations and associated yield losses require effective Weed Control measures in soybean and sugar beet. Besides chemical Weed Control, mechanical Weeding plays an important role in integrated Weed management systems. Field experiments were conducted at three locations for soybean in 2013 and 2014 and at four locations for sugar beet in 2014 to investigate if automatic steering technologies for inter-row Weed hoeing using a camera or RTK-GNSS increase Weed Control efficacy, efficiency and crop yield. Treatments using precision farming technologies were compared with conventional Weed Control strategies. Weed densities in the experiments ranged from 15 to 154 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare, Matricaria chamomilla and Lamium purpureum being the most abundant species. Weed hoeing using automatic steering technologies reduced Weed densities in soybean by 89% and in sugar beet by 87% compared to 85% Weed Control efficacy in soybean and sugar beet with conventional Weeding systems. Speed of Weed hoeing could be increased from 4 km h−1 with conventional hoes to 7 and 10 km·h−1, when automatic steering systems were used. Precision hoeing technologies increased soybean yield by 23% and sugar beet yield by 37%. After conventional hoeing and harrowing, soybean yields were increased by 28% and sugar beet yield by 26%.
Christoph Kunz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
camera steered mechanical Weed Control in sugar beet maize and soybean
Precision Agriculture, 2018Co-Authors: Christoph Kunz, Jonas Feli Webe, Gerassimos G Peteinatos, Markus Sokefeld, Roland GerhardsAbstract:In sugar beet, maize and soybean, Weeds are usually Controlled by herbicides uniformly applied across the whole field. Due to restrictions in herbicide use and negative side effects, mechanical Weeding plays a major role in integrated Weed management (IWM). In 2015 and 2016, eight field experiments were conducted to test the efficacy of an OEM Claas 3-D stereo camera® in combination with an Einbock Row-Guard® hoe for Controlling Weeds. Ducks-foot blades in the inter-row were combined with four different mechanical intra-row Weeding elements in sugar beet, maize and soybean and a band sprayer in sugar beet. Average Weed densities in the untreated Control plots were from 12 to 153 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Thlapsi arvense being the most abundant Weed species. Camera steered hoeing resulted in 78% Weed Control efficacy compared to 65% using machine hoeing with manual guidance. Mechanical intra-row elements Controlled up to 79% of the Weeds in the crop rows. Those elements did not cause significant crop damage except for the treatment with a rotary harrow in maize in 2016. Weed Control efficacy was highest in the herbicide treatments with almost 100% followed by herbicide band-applications combined with inter-row hoeing. Mechanical Weed Control treatments increased white sugar yield by 39%, maize biomass yield by 43% and soybean grain yield by 58% compared to the untreated Control in both years. However, yield increase was again higher with chemical Weed Control. In conclusion, camera guided Weed hoeing has improved efficacy and selectivity of mechanical Weed Control in sugar beet, maize and soybean.
-
chemical and mechanical Weed Control in soybean glycine max
Julius-Kühn-Archiv, 2016Co-Authors: Jonas Feli Webe, Christoph Kunz, Roland GerhardsAbstract:In this study we investigated the possibility of chemical and mechanical Weed Control strategies in soybean. Soybean field experiments were carried out in 2013 and 2014 in Southern Germany. Five treatments including common herbicide mixtures and four mechanical Weed Control treatments, implementing a harrow and a hoe, were tested at different locations. In the herbicide experiments two treatments were applied by PRE emergence herbicides (metribuzin, clomazone, dimethenamid and metribuzin, flufenacet, clomazone) and another two treatments were sprayed with a combination of PRE + POST emergence herbicides (metribuzin, flufenacet, thifensulfuron and pendimethalin, thifensulfuron, bentazone, cycloxydim). Furthermore, a POST herbicide treatment was implemented (thifensulfuron, bentazone, thifensulfuron and fluazifop-P-butyl). In the mechanical Weed Control experiments, treatments were: three times hoeing, PRE emergence harrowing plus three times hoeing, hoeing and harrowing in rotation or three times harrowing. In both experiments an untreated Control was included. A 90% Weed Control efficacy and 23% yield increase was observed in the POST herbicide treatment. PRE + POST treatments resulted in 92% to 99% Weed Control efficiency and 15% yield increase compared to the untreated Control. In the mechanical Weed Control experiments the combination of PRE emergence harrowing and POST emergence hoeing resulted in 82% Weed Control efficiency and 34% higher yield compared to the untreated Control. Less Weed Control efficiency (72%) was observed in the harrow treatment, leading to 20% higher yield compared to the Control. The suitability of both strategies for implementation in “Integrated Weed Management” has been investigated. Chemische und mechanische Unkrautkontrolle in Sojabohne ( Glycine max ) In den Jahren 2013 und 2014 wurden Feldversuche mit chemischen und mechanischen Strategien zur Unkrautkontrolle in Sojabohnen angelegt. Die chemischen Experimente setzten sich aus funf Herbizidvarianten und einer Kontrolle zusammen. In zwei der Varianten wurden Vorauflaufherbiziden mit den Wirkstoffen Metribuzin, Clomazone und Dimethenamid (Variante 1) und einer Kombination aus Metribuzin, Flufenacet und Clomazone (Variante 2) eingesetzt. Zwei weitere Varianten beinhalteten Herbizide aus dem Vor- und Nachauflauf mit den Wirkstoffen Metribuzin, Flufenacet und Thifensulfuron (Variante 3) sowie Pendimethalin, Thifensulfuron, Bentazon und Cycloxydim (Variante 4). Die funfte Variante beinhaltete eine reine Nachauflaufstrategie mit den Wirkstoffen Thifensulfuron, Bentazon, Thifensulfuron und Fluazifop-Pbutyl. In den mechanischen Experimenten wurde in Variante 1 drei Hackuberfahrten durchgefuhrt. In den weiteren Varianten wurde entweder im Vorauflauf gestriegelt und anschliesenden ebenfalls dreimalig gehackt (Variante 2), die Hacke und der Striegel im Nachauflauf abwechselnd eingesetzt (Variante 3) oder ausschlieslich der Striegel zur Unkrautkontrolle verwendet (Variante 4). Zudem wurde eine Kontrollvariante in der die Unkrauter von Hand reguliert (Variante 5) wurden und eine Variante ohne jegliche Unkrautkontrolle durchgefuhrt (Variante 6). Eine Effizienz in Bezug auf die Unkrautkontrolle von 90 % konnte in den Nachauflaufherbiziden beobachtet werden. Die Varianten mit Vorauflaufherbiziden und den Kombinationen aus Vor- und Nachauflaufherbiziden zeigten Werte von 92 % bis 99 % verglichen mit der unbehandelten Kontrolle. Der Ertragszuwachs in der Nachauflaufvariante betrug 23 % wahrend in den Varianten mit Kombination aus Vor- und Nachauflauf ein Ertragszuwachs von 15 % verglichen zu unbehandelten Kontrolle erfasst wurde. In den Versuchen mit mechanischer Unkrautkontrolle zeigte die Variante aus Vorauflaufstriegeln mit anschliesend dreimaligem Hacken im Nachauflauf einen Bekampfungserfolg von 82 % und eine Ertragssteigerung von 34 % verglichen mit der Kontrollvariante. Bei dem Einsatz des Stiegels (Variante 4) konnte eine Unkrautkontrolle von 72 % bei einer Ertragssteigerung von 20 % beobachtet werden.
-
benefits of precision farming technologies for mechanical Weed Control in soybean and sugar beet comparison of precision hoeing with conventional mechanical Weed Control
Agronomy, 2015Co-Authors: Christoph Kunz, Jonas Feli Webe, Roland GerhardsAbstract:Weed infestations and associated yield losses require effective Weed Control measures in soybean and sugar beet. Besides chemical Weed Control, mechanical Weeding plays an important role in integrated Weed management systems. Field experiments were conducted at three locations for soybean in 2013 and 2014 and at four locations for sugar beet in 2014 to investigate if automatic steering technologies for inter-row Weed hoeing using a camera or RTK-GNSS increase Weed Control efficacy, efficiency and crop yield. Treatments using precision farming technologies were compared with conventional Weed Control strategies. Weed densities in the experiments ranged from 15 to 154 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare, Matricaria chamomilla and Lamium purpureum being the most abundant species. Weed hoeing using automatic steering technologies reduced Weed densities in soybean by 89% and in sugar beet by 87% compared to 85% Weed Control efficacy in soybean and sugar beet with conventional Weeding systems. Speed of Weed hoeing could be increased from 4 km h−1 with conventional hoes to 7 and 10 km·h−1, when automatic steering systems were used. Precision hoeing technologies increased soybean yield by 23% and sugar beet yield by 37%. After conventional hoeing and harrowing, soybean yields were increased by 28% and sugar beet yield by 26%.
-
Benefits of Precision Farming Technologies for Mechanical Weed Control in Soybean and Sugar Beet—Comparison of Precision Hoeing with Conventional Mechanical Weed Control
Agronomy, 2015Co-Authors: Christoph Kunz, Jonas Felix Weber, Roland GerhardsAbstract:Weed infestations and associated yield losses require effective Weed Control measures in soybean and sugar beet. Besides chemical Weed Control, mechanical Weeding plays an important role in integrated Weed management systems. Field experiments were conducted at three locations for soybean in 2013 and 2014 and at four locations for sugar beet in 2014 to investigate if automatic steering technologies for inter-row Weed hoeing using a camera or RTK-GNSS increase Weed Control efficacy, efficiency and crop yield. Treatments using precision farming technologies were compared with conventional Weed Control strategies. Weed densities in the experiments ranged from 15 to 154 plants m−2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare, Matricaria chamomilla and Lamium purpureum being the most abundant species. Weed hoeing using automatic steering technologies reduced Weed densities in soybean by 89% and in sugar beet by 87% compared to 85% Weed Control efficacy in soybean and sugar beet with conventional Weeding systems. Speed of Weed hoeing could be increased from 4 km h−1 with conventional hoes to 7 and 10 km·h−1, when automatic steering systems were used. Precision hoeing technologies increased soybean yield by 23% and sugar beet yield by 37%. After conventional hoeing and harrowing, soybean yields were increased by 28% and sugar beet yield by 26%.
Marcinkevičienė Aušra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mechanical and thermal Weed Control and use of bio-preparations in winter oilseed rape
2020Co-Authors: Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Pupalienė Rita, Utkevičienė, Lina Marija, Kosteckas Robertas, Čekanauskas SigitasAbstract:Researches were conducted at the Experimental Station of Aleksandras Stulginskis University. This study aims to identify and assess the impact of thermal and mechanical Weed Control methods on winter oilseed rape (WOR) crops and Weed competitiveness during the autumn vegetation period in an organic farming system, with and without the use of bio-preparations. Experimental treatments were: non-chemical Weed Control methods (Factor A): 1 – thermal (water steam), 2 –mechanical (inter-row loosening); and bio-preparations (Factor B): 1 – no application and 2 – with application. During experiment in the autumnal vegetation period before the use of Weed Control methods in the organic WOR crop, up to 21 Weed species were found in 14 families, including up to 19 annuals and only up to three perennials. In 2013, meteorological conditions were more favourable for the growth and development of WOR than in 2012, therefore in 2013, the density of the WOR crop was on average 38.8% higher. Prior to the Weed Control application in 2013, the number of Weed seedlings was, on average, 1.9 times higher than in 2012, but the dense oilseed rape crop had higher smothering capacity. In 2013, in WOR crop without the use of biopreparations, the number of germinated Weed seedlings was higher (1.2–1.3 times) compared to the crop where bio-preparations were used. The use of biopreparations in the thermal Weed Control plots significantly (P ≤ 0.05) reduced the number of Weed seedlings (20.4%). The assessment of the efficiency of Weed Control methods revealed, that without the use of bio-preparations, mechanical Weed Control efficiency was 3.6 to 4.5 times higher than the thermal Weed Control efficiency. Bio-preparations enhanced thermal Weed Control efficiency (from 4.5 to 21.8%), but mechanical Weed Control efficiency was reduced from 6.8 to 23.1%Vytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
-
Non-chemical Weed Control systems in organically grown spring oilseed rape
'Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra', 2020Co-Authors: Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Pupalienė Rita, Kosteckas Robertas, Mockevičienė Rita, Butkevičienė, Lina Marija, Čekanauskas SigitasAbstract:This study aims to determine the impact of different non-chemical Weed Control systems on organically grown spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) crop Weediness and yield of seeds. Non-chemical Weed Control systems: 1) thermal (water steam), 2) mechanical (inter-row loosening), and 3) smothering (self-regulation). Thermal (1.5–1.8 times) and mechanical (2.5–6.8 times) Weed Control systems significantly reduced the number of Weed seedlings in spring oilseed rape crop, compared with the Weed smothering system. The most effective system of Weed Control in rape crop was mechanical (efficiency 30.9–75.5 %). Efficiency of thermal Weed Control system, compared with mechanical, was lower, 28.4–40.0 %. Before rape harvesting in plots where mechanical Weed Control was applied, compared with plots where Weed smothering was used, the number of Weeds was significantly 3.2–4.4 times lower, and dry matter mass of Weeds was 2.2–3.1 times lower. The yield of rape seeds increased with increasing efficiency of thermal and mechanical Weed Control. In 2014, the yield of rape seeds depended on number of Weed seedlings and dry matter mass of Weeds before rape harvestingVytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
-
The influnce of non-chemical Weed Control on the productivity of spring oilseed rape
2020Co-Authors: Mockevičienė Rita, Velička Rimantas, Marcinkevičienė AušraAbstract:https://doi.org/10.7220/9786094674662; https://zua.vdu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Agroeco_2020_Abstracts-Book.pdfThere is a considerable amount of investigations on oilseed rape cultivated in an organic production system, but there is a lack of investigations in Lithuanian climate conditions, particularly involving innovative Weed Control methods. Field experiment was carried at Experimental Station of Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy in 2014–2016. The aim of the study was to determine the influence of non-chemical Weed Control methods and bio-preparations on spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus L. spp. oleifera annua Metzg.) productivity. Treatments of the experiment: Factor A: Weed Control methods: 1) thermal (Weed Control with water steam, inter-row spacing 48 cm), 2) mechanical (Weed Control with an inter-row cultivator, inter-row spacing 48 cm), 3) self regulation (natural crop-Weed competition, inter-row spacing 12 cm); Factor B: bio-preparations application: 1) with bio-preparations, 2) without bio-preparations. In the plots of thermal and mechanical Weed Control an increase was established in plant above-ground mass (from 1.52 till 2.40 times), area (from 1.59 till 186 times), length (from 1.55 till 2.00 times) and mass (from 1.42 till 1.60 times) of spring oilseed rape root, compared with the self-regulation plots. Bio-preparations increased oilseed rape above-ground mass, area, length and mass of root in the plots of thermal Weed Control. In the treatments of thermal and mechanical Weed Control in combination with bio-preparations, compared with self-regulations treatments, there was recorded higher plant height, dry matter mass, number of branches, number of siliques and number of seeds per silique. In the crop without the use of bio-preparations, the efficacy of mechanical Weed Control for oilseed rape biometric and yield structural indicators was higher, compared with that of thermal Weed Control. The highest oilseed rape seed yield was formed in the thermal Weed Control treatment in [...]Agronomijos fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta
-
Nonchemical Weed Control in winter oilseed rape crop in the organic farming system
'IntechOpen', 2020Co-Authors: Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Pupalienė Rita, Keidan Marina, Butkevičienė Lina, Kosteckas RobertasAbstract:Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRSTA field experiment was conducted during the 2014–2017 period at Aleksandras Stulginskis University (now—Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy) on a Endocalcaric Endogleyic Luvisol (LV-can.gln) according to the WRB 2014. The three nonchemical Weed Control methods were explored: (1) thermal (using wet water steam), (2) mechanical (interrow loosening), and (3) self-regulation (smothering). In the thermal and mechanical Weed Control treatments, winter oilseed rape was grown with an interrow spacing of 48.0 cm and in Weed smothering (selfregulation) treatment with an interrow spacing of 12.0 cm. Winter oilseed rape was grown in the soil with a regular humus layer (23–25 cm) and with a thickened humus layer (45–50 cm). Annual Weeds predominated in the winter oilseed rape crop. In the soil with both humus layers, regular and thickened, the most efficient Weed Control method was mechanical Weed management both during the autumn (efficacy 26.7–75.1%) and spring (efficacy 37.1–76.7%) growing seasons. Thermal and mechanical Weed Control in combination with the bio-preparations in droughty years significantly reduced the number of Weed seedlings. Dry matter mass of Weeds most markedly decreased through the application of the mechanical Weed management methodAgronomijos fakultetasEkoagrosVytauto Didžiojo universiteta
-
The efficiency of non-chemical Weed Control in winter rapeseed
2019Co-Authors: Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Pupalienė Rita, Utkevičienė, Lina Marija, Kosteckas Robertas, Keida Marina, Čekanauskas SigitasAbstract:There are favourable conditions for spread of Weeds, pests and diseases in rapeseed crop grown in organic farming, and this is results in low rapeseed productivity. The aim of the research was to determine the efficiency of non-chemical Weed Control methods (thermal, mechanical and smothering) in winter rapeseed crop. Field experiment was carried out in 2014–2017 at the Experimental Station of Aleksandras Stulginskis University (54°53′ N, 23°50′ E). Soil – Calc(ar)i-Endohypogleyic Luvisol. Winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L. spp. oleifera biennis Metzg.), variety ‘Cult’ (3 kg ha-1) was grown in soil with a regular (23–25 cm) (Experiment I) and thickened (45–50 cm) (Experiment II) humus layers. Experimental treatments: Factor A: non-chemical Weed Control: 1) thermal (water steam); 2) mechanical (inter-row loosening); 3) smothering (self-regulation with narrow spacing); Factor B: use of bio-preparations: 1) no application, 2) with application (bio-organic fertilisers used: ‘Nagro’ applied for rapeseeds before sowing, ‘Terra Sorb Foliar’ was sprayed in autumn (2 l ha-1), and in spring – ‘Terra Sorb Foliar’ (1 l ha-1) and 0.3 % Conflic). In the winter rapeseed crop, annual Weed species dominated: Chenopodium album L., Tripleurospermum perforatum (Merat) M. Lainz, Stellaria media (L.) Vill., Veronica arvensis L., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik., and Poa annua L. During vegetation period of organic winter rapeseed crop, mechanical Weed Control was the most effective method both in autumn (efficiency was 26.8–71.5% in the soil with regular and 40.6–76.0% with thickened humus layers) and in spring (efficiency was accordingly 36.9–76, 5% and 46.4–73.3%). The effectiveness of thermal Weed Control compared to mechanical was lower. Bio-preparations increased the effectiveness of thermal and mechanical Weed Control methods only in autumn of 2014 and spring of 2015Vytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
J K Kouwenhove - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
intra row mechanical Weed Control possibilities and problems
Soil & Tillage Research, 1997Co-Authors: J K KouwenhoveAbstract:Abstract For five years, graduate students of the Tillage Laboratory of Wageningen Agricultural University studied the effectiveness of intra-row Weed Control by brushes, tactile hoes and Weeder harrows in combination with a drill planting system and paper pots. From the technical point of view, brushes and tactile hoes were effective, reducing the amount of herbicides needed to about 10% of the amount used by full width spraying. However, their high costs and low capacity make them unattractive for completely mechanized farming, although as a substitute for manual work, they may be quite profitable for organic farmers. Weeder harrows are relatively cheap and have a high capacity. Selectivity, a criterion for machine adjustment, could be improved in arable crops by planting in paper pots. Yield losses resulting from increased soil compaction caused by mechanical Weed Control with a light tractor instead of chemical Weed Control appear to be negligible.
-
possibilities of mechanical post emergence Weed Control in sugar beet
Soil & Tillage Research, 1991Co-Authors: J K Kouwenhove, J D A Wevers, J PosAbstract:Abstract During a period of four years, 1986–1989, a number of field experiments on post-emergence Weed Control in sugar beet was carried out. The experiments are components of five Weed Control systems: chemical; integrated; integrated including ridging; mechanical; mechanical with plants in squares. The effect of the planting system, plant distribution and of the Weed Control system on Weed growth and crop yield was investigated. Integrated Weed Control (+ ridging) was relatively unsatisfactory from the perspective of Weed density, but mostly without serious yield losses with regard to chemical Weed Control. Mechanical Weed Control in a row crop proved to be inadequate, because of intra-row Weed growth. With beet in square distribution, the mechanically treated area increased from about 70% to about 90% of the arable surface. This resulted in the lowest density and biomass of Weeds at the closing of the crop and an extra yield of transplanted beet in squares over drilled beet in rows of nearly 10 t ha −1 .
Čekanauskas Sigitas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Mechanical and thermal Weed Control and use of bio-preparations in winter oilseed rape
2020Co-Authors: Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Pupalienė Rita, Utkevičienė, Lina Marija, Kosteckas Robertas, Čekanauskas SigitasAbstract:Researches were conducted at the Experimental Station of Aleksandras Stulginskis University. This study aims to identify and assess the impact of thermal and mechanical Weed Control methods on winter oilseed rape (WOR) crops and Weed competitiveness during the autumn vegetation period in an organic farming system, with and without the use of bio-preparations. Experimental treatments were: non-chemical Weed Control methods (Factor A): 1 – thermal (water steam), 2 –mechanical (inter-row loosening); and bio-preparations (Factor B): 1 – no application and 2 – with application. During experiment in the autumnal vegetation period before the use of Weed Control methods in the organic WOR crop, up to 21 Weed species were found in 14 families, including up to 19 annuals and only up to three perennials. In 2013, meteorological conditions were more favourable for the growth and development of WOR than in 2012, therefore in 2013, the density of the WOR crop was on average 38.8% higher. Prior to the Weed Control application in 2013, the number of Weed seedlings was, on average, 1.9 times higher than in 2012, but the dense oilseed rape crop had higher smothering capacity. In 2013, in WOR crop without the use of biopreparations, the number of germinated Weed seedlings was higher (1.2–1.3 times) compared to the crop where bio-preparations were used. The use of biopreparations in the thermal Weed Control plots significantly (P ≤ 0.05) reduced the number of Weed seedlings (20.4%). The assessment of the efficiency of Weed Control methods revealed, that without the use of bio-preparations, mechanical Weed Control efficiency was 3.6 to 4.5 times higher than the thermal Weed Control efficiency. Bio-preparations enhanced thermal Weed Control efficiency (from 4.5 to 21.8%), but mechanical Weed Control efficiency was reduced from 6.8 to 23.1%Vytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
-
Non-chemical Weed Control systems in organically grown spring oilseed rape
'Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra', 2020Co-Authors: Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Pupalienė Rita, Kosteckas Robertas, Mockevičienė Rita, Butkevičienė, Lina Marija, Čekanauskas SigitasAbstract:This study aims to determine the impact of different non-chemical Weed Control systems on organically grown spring oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) crop Weediness and yield of seeds. Non-chemical Weed Control systems: 1) thermal (water steam), 2) mechanical (inter-row loosening), and 3) smothering (self-regulation). Thermal (1.5–1.8 times) and mechanical (2.5–6.8 times) Weed Control systems significantly reduced the number of Weed seedlings in spring oilseed rape crop, compared with the Weed smothering system. The most effective system of Weed Control in rape crop was mechanical (efficiency 30.9–75.5 %). Efficiency of thermal Weed Control system, compared with mechanical, was lower, 28.4–40.0 %. Before rape harvesting in plots where mechanical Weed Control was applied, compared with plots where Weed smothering was used, the number of Weeds was significantly 3.2–4.4 times lower, and dry matter mass of Weeds was 2.2–3.1 times lower. The yield of rape seeds increased with increasing efficiency of thermal and mechanical Weed Control. In 2014, the yield of rape seeds depended on number of Weed seedlings and dry matter mass of Weeds before rape harvestingVytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
-
Temperature variation in the topsoil during thermal Weed Control
2020Co-Authors: Kerpauskas Paulius, Čekanauskas Sigitas, Nadzeikienė Jūratė, Čingienė Rasa, Ūksas TomasAbstract:The paper presents analysis of temperature variation in the topsoil during thermal Weed Control. The study was aimed to determine the peculiarities of the technology of Weed thermal Control by wet saturated steam in the crop stand above the emerging seed. During thermal Weed Control, a high-temperature environment of 100oC is created in the plant environment seeking to heat plant tissue to a temperature of above 58oC. In such temperature, changes occur in the biological processes in plant tissue resulting in lethal outcome. Thermal Weed Control process using wet saturated steam (WSS) significantly differs from the flaming by gas. During the steam condensation, the high-temperature environment intensively heats not only plants but also soil surface. Consequently, in the technology of thermal Weed Control with water steam it is necessary to find solutions to the issues of emerging seed and seedling destruction in the soil. Experimental evidence suggests that irrespective of the WSS treatment duration, soil surface temperature is close to that of water steam and is 94.7-95.5oC. Water steam condensation process occurs on the soil surface, therefore a temperature of 58oC, which is lethal to plants, reaches deeper soil layers. The experimental findings indicate that application of WSS technology for Weed Control (with a thermal treatment duration of 1-3 s), destroys plants and seedlings present not only on the surface of the soil but also in the surface soil layer up to 1.5 mm depth. Simulation of temperature fields in the surface soil layer enabled us to identify the effects of soil bulk density and thermal treatment duration on the formation of temperature exceeding 58oC. [...]Vytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
-
The efficiency of non-chemical Weed Control in winter rapeseed
2019Co-Authors: Marcinkevičienė Aušra, Kriaučiūnienė Zita, Velička Rimantas, Pupalienė Rita, Utkevičienė, Lina Marija, Kosteckas Robertas, Keida Marina, Čekanauskas SigitasAbstract:There are favourable conditions for spread of Weeds, pests and diseases in rapeseed crop grown in organic farming, and this is results in low rapeseed productivity. The aim of the research was to determine the efficiency of non-chemical Weed Control methods (thermal, mechanical and smothering) in winter rapeseed crop. Field experiment was carried out in 2014–2017 at the Experimental Station of Aleksandras Stulginskis University (54°53′ N, 23°50′ E). Soil – Calc(ar)i-Endohypogleyic Luvisol. Winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L. spp. oleifera biennis Metzg.), variety ‘Cult’ (3 kg ha-1) was grown in soil with a regular (23–25 cm) (Experiment I) and thickened (45–50 cm) (Experiment II) humus layers. Experimental treatments: Factor A: non-chemical Weed Control: 1) thermal (water steam); 2) mechanical (inter-row loosening); 3) smothering (self-regulation with narrow spacing); Factor B: use of bio-preparations: 1) no application, 2) with application (bio-organic fertilisers used: ‘Nagro’ applied for rapeseeds before sowing, ‘Terra Sorb Foliar’ was sprayed in autumn (2 l ha-1), and in spring – ‘Terra Sorb Foliar’ (1 l ha-1) and 0.3 % Conflic). In the winter rapeseed crop, annual Weed species dominated: Chenopodium album L., Tripleurospermum perforatum (Merat) M. Lainz, Stellaria media (L.) Vill., Veronica arvensis L., Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik., and Poa annua L. During vegetation period of organic winter rapeseed crop, mechanical Weed Control was the most effective method both in autumn (efficiency was 26.8–71.5% in the soil with regular and 40.6–76.0% with thickened humus layers) and in spring (efficiency was accordingly 36.9–76, 5% and 46.4–73.3%). The effectiveness of thermal Weed Control compared to mechanical was lower. Bio-preparations increased the effectiveness of thermal and mechanical Weed Control methods only in autumn of 2014 and spring of 2015Vytauto Didžiojo universitetasŽemės ūkio akademij
