Search

In sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) weed control is commonly performed by herbicide application applied broadcast at splitting during the cultivation period. Mechanical weeding can be an alternative to chemical weed control. The aim of this experiment was the estimation of weed control efficacy with the use of automatic steering technologies by camera guidance, the use of different intra row weed control implements in conservation tillage systems and the influence of these techniques to the number of uprooted sugar beets. A field experiment with a randomized complete plot design was conducted in 2015 at Ihinger Hof, Germany. Weed density ranged from 0 to 12 plants m-2 with Chenopodium album, Polygonum convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare as the most abundant weed species. Hoeing with the use of automatic steering technologies reduced the weed density by 82%. The use of finger weeders, rotary-harrow and torsion finger weeder reduced the weed density by 29% compared to common hoeing strategies. Differences in the number of uprooted sugar beets were not found across all treatments. We revealed the possibility of a more intense use of mechanical weeding technologies in combination with precision farming technologies in sugar beet.

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.

An increasing number of farmers use cover crop mixtures instead of monoculture cover crops to improve soil and crop quality. However, only little information is available about the weed suppression ability of cover crop mixtures. Therefore, two field experiments were conducted in Baden-Württemberg between 2010 and 2012, to compare growth and weed suppression of monoculture cover crops and cover crop mixtures. In the first experiment, heterogeneous results between yellow mustard and the cover crop mixture occurred. For further research, a field experiment was conducted in 2012 to compare monocultures of yellow mustard and hemp with three cover crop mixtures. The evaluated mixtures were: “MELO”: for soil melioration; “BETA”: includes only plant species with no close relation to main cash crops in Central Europe and “GPS”: for usage as energy substrate in spring. Yellow mustard, MELO, BETA and GPS covered 90% of the soil in less than 42 days and were able to reduce photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) on soil surface by more than 96% after 52 days. Hemp covered 90% of the soil after 47 days and reduced PAR by 91% after 52 days. Eight weeks after planting, only BETA showed similar growth to yellow mustard which produced the highest dry matter. The GPS mixture had comparatively poor growth, while MELO produced similar dry matter to hemp. Yellow mustard, MELO and BETA reduced weed growth by 96% compared with a no cover crop control, while hemp and GPS reduced weeds by 85% and 79%. In spring, weed dry matter was reduced by more than 94% in plots with yellow mustard and all mixtures, while in hemp plots weeds were only reduced by 71%. The results suggest that the tested cover crop mixtures offer similar weed suppression ability until spring as the monoculture of the competitive yellow mustard.