Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils

Kurstjens, D.A.G.; Perdok, U.D.; Goense, D.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00205.x

Cited by 52 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of species, working depth, soil moisture content of the tilled layer at harrowing and speed were analysed at the main‐plot level, whereas effects of uprooting and soil‐covering were analysed at the subplot level. It should be noted that the uprooting and covering status were not randomly assigned to plants because it was predominantly the smallest plants that were uprooted and covered (Kurstjens et al ., 2000; Kurstjens & Perdok, 2000).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1). Plants vary in their resistance to being uprooted or covered, depending on their anchorage strength (Meyler & Rühling, 1966; Fogelberg & Dock Gustavsson, 1998, 1999) or their height and flexibility (Meyler & Rühling, 1966; Kurstjens & Perdok, 2000). This has been shown in laboratory harrowing experiments with Lolium perenne L., Lepidium sativum L. and Chenopodium quinoa Willd.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To increase the reliability and effectiveness of mechanical weed control, the impact of the damaging process during harrowing (Kurstjens et al ., 2000; Kurstjens & Perdok, 2000) and the recovery process after harrowing should be quantified separately. Ways of manipulating these two processes should be studied to exploit specific weaknesses of the weed and strengths of the crop.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…Steinmann & Gerowitt, 1993; Wilson et al. , 1993; Rydberg, 1994; Rasmussen & Svenningsen, 1995; Rasmussen, 1998, 2004; Kurstjens et al. , 2000; Rasmussen et al.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Effects of pre‐ and post‐emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals

Lundkvist

2009

Weed Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary To assess the effects of timing and frequency of weed harrowing on weed abundance and crop yield, different pre‐ and post‐emergence weed harrowing sequences were applied to spring cereals and peas in field experiments performed during 2003 and 2004 in Sweden. Post‐emergence harrowing was performed at crop growth stages 2–3 and 5–6 true leaves respectively. The best weed control was obtained by a combination of pre‐ and post‐emergence harrowing, but these treatments also caused yield losses of 12–14% in spring cereals, while no yield losses were observed in peas. Pre‐emergence weed harrowing treatments alone or combined with weed harrowing shortly after crop emergence proved to be most effective against the early emerging annual weed species Sinapis arvensis and Galeopsis spp. Post‐emergence harrowing alone in peas had no effect on S. arvensis. The late emerging annual weed species Chenopodium album and Polygonum lapathifolium were most effectively controlled when pre‐emergence weed harrowing was combined with one or two weed harrowing treatments after crop emergence.

show abstract

“…3,12,22,29,[36][37][38][39][40][41] . For this reason, technical and scientific knowledge available on this topic is lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical weed control in protected leaf-beet in central Italy

Raffaelli

Fontanelli

Frasconi

et al. 2010

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leaf-beet is a typical and very important protected cultivation crop in central Italy. In leaf-beet protected cultivation, weed control is one of the most important problems because of its fairly long crop cycle (approximately 4-5 months). The aim of this research was to set up an efficient non chemical weed control strategy performed with innovative machines built and set up by the University of Pisa. A two-year (2006-2007) 'on-farm' experimental trial was carried out in Crespina (PI). A conventional weed management technique (consisting of one pre-transplanting chemical treatment) was compared with an innovative physical weed control strategy in an organic production system (consisting of using a stale seedbed technique, in several post-emergence precision hoeing and in-row hand-weeding treatments). In the conventional technique, leaf-beet was manually transplanted, while it was sown with a precision pneumatic planter in the organic system. All innovative machines for physical weed control were adjusted and set up for the protected cultivation. Similar yields were recorded for the two systems in this two-year trial. Total labor time (for weed management and crop planting) was appreciably lower in the conventional system in the first year of the experiment (-67%), while in the second year, some improvement in the physical weed control techniques decreased labor needs with respect to the conventional technique (-40%). Weed dry biomass at harvest was significantly lower in the organic cropping system (on average -50%).

show abstract

Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils

Cited by 52 publications

References 12 publications

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

Effects of pre‐ and post‐emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals

Physical weed control in protected leaf-beet in central Italy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About