Inter-row and intra-row weed control with a hoe-ridger

Terpstra, R.A.; Kouwenhoven, J.K.

doi:10.1016/0021-8634(81)90064-0

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and Papaver rhoeas at the six‐leaf stage and Poa annua L. and Poa trivialis L. at the three‐leaf stage by 95–100% when pots were moistened daily (Jones et al ., 1995). As the critical burial depths derived from our experiments coincide with the findings mentioned above and those of Terpstra & Kouwenhoven (1981) and Baerveldt & Ascard (1999), we conclude that the limited impact of covering was caused by the shallow burial depth resulting from harrowing.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…on a sandy soil, in which it was found that 48–59% of the white threads and plants breaking through the soil surface and 17–26% of the young seedlings were uprooted (Kurstjens et al ., 2000). Previous research suggests that the ability to recover from mechanical damage depends on species and the type of mechanical damage (Habel, 1954; Kees, 1962; Koch, 1964; Cavers & Kane, 1990; Jones et al ., 1995, 1996) and on soil and weather conditions after harrowing (Terpstra & Kouwenhoven, 1981; Cavers & Kane, 1990; Real et al ., 1993; Jones et al ., 1995, 1996, 1999). From this, it can be hypothesized that working depth and working speed not only affect the proportion of uprooted and covered plants, but that the resulting burial depth or upward movement of uprooted plants also influences the regrowth capability of damaged plants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of uprooting and soil‐covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing

Kurstjens

Kropff

2001

Weed Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of uprooting and covering plants on mortality and growth reduction was investigated in the laboratory using Lolium perenne L. and Lepidium sativum L. (harrowed 3–4 days after emergence) and Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (harrowed at emergence) as model weed species. Although the predominant initial effect of harrowing was to cover the plants, only 1–17% of the non‐uprooted covered plants were killed because the depth at which they were buried by the harrow was shallow. Uprooting was more effective (47–61% mortality) but strongly dependent on soil moisture content. It accounted for 93 and 95% of L. sativum and C. quinoa mortality, but for only 60% of L. perenne mortality. In L. perenne, the species most sensitive to burying, a strong positive relationship was observed between the percentage of plants covered by harrowing and the fresh weight reduction of the total population 6 days after harrowing. The fresh weight reduction of the total L. sativum population was best related to the percentage of uprooted plants, but the percentage of covered plants also appeared to be a good predictor because of its correlation with uprooting. Most of the uprooted plants were also buried. The fresh weight reduction of the total C. quinoa population was not related to the covering effect of harrowing and only weakly related to the percentage of uprooted plants. The results indicate that the plant recovery process after harrowing needs further study and that field research methods should be refined so that they can better discern initial and final harrowing effects on weeds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of uprooting and soil‐covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing

Kurstjens

Kropff

2001

Weed Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kurstjens and Kropff (2001) found that burial with the lab harrow provided weed control only in the range of 1-17% because the depth at which they were buried by the harrow was shallow. Even though Jones et al (1995) and Terpstra and Kouwenhoven (1981) in pot experiments found higher weed control efficacies, the results from Kurstjens and Kropff (2001) is used for the prediction of weed control in this paper. It is the only study simulating real field conditions using rigid tines similar to the ones on the cycloid hoe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of an autonomous GPS-based system for intra-row weed control by assessing the tilled area

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An automatic tillage system for inter-and intra-row weed control based on real-time kinematic GPS navigation and control has been used to address the problem of mechanically removing weeds within rows of precision seeded crops. The system comprised a side-shifting frame with an attached tine-rotor (cycloid hoe) with eight sigmoidshaped, vertically directed tines. The individual tines can be released for individual rotation in order to avoid collision with geo-referenced crop plants. The system navigated with reference to pre-defined waypoints for tillage parallel to crop rows and around individual crop plants. The system evaluation was based on quantification of treated areas for uprooting and burial and the corresponding prediction of weed control efficiencies. A single pass of an 80 mm wide row band provided tillage of 30-49% of the intra-row area, with highest coverage at a speed of 0.32 m s -1 and at even plant spacing. A double pass, once on each side of the row in opposite directions, provided higher soil disturbance intensity and resulted in tillage of 31-58% of the intra-row area with highest coverage at a speed of 0.32 m s -1 . The intra-row weed control effect was predicted to be up to 20% for a single pass and up to 29% for a 2-way pass treatment both at the white thread to the twoleaf stage of weeds. The result of the prediction is of crucial importance for the considerations of tool designs at the current conceptual stage of the system.

show abstract

“…As with all mechanical weeding tools, adjustment of the hoeing depth, forward travel speed and tool width are essential to avoid crop damage or unsatisfying weed control [2,17]. Lowering the sweeps too deep into the ground may create large lumps of soil in which weeds can continue to grow [18].…”

Section: Weeding Tool Description and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Larger weeds, perennial species and monocot weed species, in particular, are less affected by the harrowing. Due to these limitations, the interrow spaces between crop rows could be treated with more aggressive methods, such as hoeing [2][3][4]. Interrow hoeing is practiced in organic cereal farming, with row distances of at least 200 mm in Northern Europe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjustment of Weed Hoeing to Narrowly Spaced Cereals

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weed hoeing can be successfully performed in wide row crops, such as sugar beet, maize, soybean and wide spaced cereals. However, little experience is available for hoeing in narrow cereal row spaces below 200 mm. Yet, mechanical weed control can pose an alternative to herbicide applications by reducing the herbicide resistant populations present in the field. In this experiment, it was investigated whether hoeing is feasible in cereals with 150 and 125 mm row spacings. The trial was set up at two locations (Ihinger Hof and Kleinhohenheim) in southwest Germany. Three different conventional hoeing sweeps, a goosefoot sweep, a no-till sweep and a down-cut side knife were adjusted to the small row widths, and hoeing was performed once with a tractor and a standard hoeing frame which was guided by a second human operator. The average grain yield, crop and weed biomass, and weed control efficacy of each treatment were recorded. The goosefoot and no-till sweep were tested at driving speeds of 4 and 6 km·h −1 . The down-cut side knife was applied at 4 km·h −1 . The results indicate that hoeing caused no yield decrease in comparison to a conventional herbicide application or manual weeding. The highest yield with a mechanical treatment was recorded for the no-till sweeps at both trial locations. Hoeing was performed successfully in narrowly spaced cereals of 150 and 125 mm, and the weed control efficacy of the mechanical treatments ranged from 50.9% at Kleinhohenheim to 89.1% at Ihinger Hof. Future experiments are going to focus on more distinct driving speeds ranging from 2 to 10 km·h −1 and performing more than one pass with the hoe. Additionally, combining the mechanical weeding tools with a camera-steered hoeing frame could increase accuracy, allow for higher working speeds and substitute the second human operator guiding the hoe.

show abstract

Inter-row and intra-row weed control with a hoe-ridger

Cited by 36 publications

References 1 publication

The impact of uprooting and soil‐covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing

The impact of uprooting and soil‐covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing

Evaluation of an autonomous GPS-based system for intra-row weed control by assessing the tilled area

Adjustment of Weed Hoeing to Narrowly Spaced Cereals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About