Untitled

Slaughter, David C.; Chen, P.; Curley, R. G.

doi:10.1023/a:1009963924920

Cited by 33 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Machine vision is one of the most used techniques for this purpose [20]. Many researches have been conducted on the 2-D approach, but to date its application is limited to field with low or moderate weed densities [21]. The 3-D approach, being able to use much richer features that can be extracted from 3D data, presents the potential to overcome many limitations in 2D imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Autonomous Mowers Weed Control Effect in Globe Artichoke Field

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of a fully automated robotic weeder is currently hindered by the lack of a reliable technique for weed-crop detection. Autonomous mower moving with random trajectories rely on simplified computational resources and have shown potential when applied for agricultural purposes. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of these autonomous mowers for weed control in globe artichoke. A first trial consisting of the comparison of the performances of three different autonomous mowers (AM1, AM2 and AM3) was carried out evaluating percentage of area mowed and primary energy consumption. The most suitable autonomous mower was tested for its weed control effect and compared with a conventional weed management system. Average weeds height, weed cover percentage, above-ground weed biomass, artichoke yield, primary energy consumption and cost were assessed. All the autonomous mowers achieved a percentage of area mowed around the 80% after 180 min. AM2 was chosen as the best compromise for weed control in the artichoke field (83.83% of area mowed after 180 min of mowing, and a consumption of 430.50 kWh⋅ha−1⋅year−1). The autonomous mower weed management achieved a higher weed control effect (weed biomass of 71.76 vs. 143.67 g d.m.⋅m−2), a lower energy consumption (430.5 vs. 1135.13 kWh⋅ha−1⋅year−1), and a lower cost (EUR 2601.84 vs. EUR 3661.80 ha−1·year−1) compared to the conventional system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Autonomous Mowers Weed Control Effect in Globe Artichoke Field

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2022, the machine setting was improved by optimizing the colour shade of the vision software according to Gerrish et al (1997). In addition, a sun cover was mounted on top of the hoeing frame in order to reduce the disturbing effects of light and shadow on the camera system during imaging (Slaughter et al, 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bi‐directional hoeing in maize

Naruhn,

Schneevoigt,

Hartung

et al. 2023

Weed Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The weed control efficacy (WCE) of mechanical weeding in the inter‐row area in conventional cropping systems can achieve more than 90%. Despite the use of special intra‐row tools (e.g., finger weeders), only a WCE of 65%–75% can currently be realized in the intra‐row area. To close the gap between inter‐row and intra‐row WCE, in this study, a new approach for high‐efficacy precise mechanical weeding is presented. By using a GPS‐based pneumatic precision seeder (Kverneland GEOseed), a square crop seeding pattern of 37.5 cm × 37.5 cm was established in maize to enable post‐emergence hoeing lengthwise and transverse to the sowing direction. Thus, the treated area by the hoeing blades is postulated to increase, resulting in higher WCE. For this, six field experiments were conducted in South‐Western Germany in 2021 and 2022. Goosefoot blades and no‐till sweeps were guided automatically using a camera for row detection and a hydraulic side‐shift control for the hoe. This bi‐directional treatment was compared to an herbicide application and to hoeing treatments only along and transverse to the sowing direction. The bi‐directional hoeing treatment increased the WCE compared to hoeing along the crop rows on average from 80% to 95% and was not significantly different from the herbicide applications in 2022. Precise sowing in combination with hoeing along and transverse the crop rows resulted in 5.3% crop losses compared to 2.2% for hoeing only along the sowing direction by using only 15 cm wide goosefoot blades, while in the herbicide treatment and the untreated control no crop losses were detected. While maize biomass was not significantly different from the herbicide treatment in most cases over both years, in 2022, even the grain yield of the bi‐directional hoeing treatment with goosefoot blades (7.8 Mg ha−1) was statistically equal to the herbicide treatment (6.9 Mg ha−1). This study demonstrates the great potential of bi‐directional hoeing as an effective alternative to chemical weed control in row crops such as maize, sunflower and sugar beet.

show abstract

“…For example, camera-guided hoes are readily available on the market from different manufacturers. Their guidance concept is based on a camera that tracks the crop rows and sends a signal to a hydraulic cylinder, which shifts the hoe left or right to stay aligned with the crop rows [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensor-Based Intrarow Mechanical Weed Control in Sugar Beets with Motorized Finger Weeders

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for herbicide usage reduction and the increased interest in mechanical weed control has prompted greater attention to the development of agricultural robots for autonomous weeding in the past years. This also requires the development of suitable mechanical weeding tools. Therefore, we devised a new weeding tool for agricultural robots to perform intrarow mechanical weed control in sugar beets. A conventional finger weeder was modified and equipped with an electric motor. This allowed the rotational movement of the finger weeders independent of the forward travel speed of the tool carrier. The new tool was tested in combination with a bi-spectral camera in a two-year field trial. The camera was used to identify crop plants in the intrarow area. A controller regulated the speed of the motorized finger weeders, realizing two different setups. At the location of a sugar beet plant, the rotational speed was equal to the driving speed of the tractor. Between two sugar beet plants, the rotational speed was either increased by 40% or decreased by 40%. The intrarow weed control efficacy of this new system ranged from 87% to 91% in 2017 and from 91% to 94% in 2018. The sugar beet yields were not adversely affected by the mechanical treatments compared to the conventional herbicide application. The motorized finger weeders present an effective system for selective intrarow mechanical weeding. Certainly, mechanical weeding involves the risk of high weed infestations if the treatments are not applied properly and in a timely manner regardless of whether sensor technology is used or not. However, due to the increasing herbicide resistances and the continuing bans on herbicides, mechanical weeding strategies must be investigated further. The mechanical weeding system of the present study can contribute to the reduction of herbicide use in sugar beets and other wide row crops.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 33 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluation of Autonomous Mowers Weed Control Effect in Globe Artichoke Field

Evaluation of Autonomous Mowers Weed Control Effect in Globe Artichoke Field

Bi‐directional hoeing in maize

Sensor-Based Intrarow Mechanical Weed Control in Sugar Beets with Motorized Finger Weeders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About