News Update on Weed Control Research: June – 2019

Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review

Autonomous robotic weed management systems hold promise toward the automation of 1 of agriculture’s few remaining unmechanised and labouring tasks, hand weed management. Robotic technology may additionally  offer a method of reducing agriculture’s current dependency on herbicides, rising its property and reducing its environmental impact. This review describes the present standing of the four core technologies (guidance, detection and identification, exactness in-row weed management, and mapping) needed for the made development of a general robotic system for weed management. Of the four, detection and identification of weeds underneath the big selection of conditions common to agricultural fields remains the best challenge. some complete robotic weed management systems have incontestable  the potential of the technology within the field. extra analysis and development is required to totally understand this potential. [1]

The Critical Period of Weed Control in Grain Corn (Zea mays)

Field studies were conducted in southern Ontario to work out the vital amount of weed management in grain corn and also the influence of weed interference on corn leaf space. The Gompertz and logistical equations were fitted to information representing increasing durations of weed management and weed interference, severally. the start of the vital amount varied from the 3- to 14-leaf stages of corn development but, the top of the vital amount was less variable and complete on the average at the 14-leaf stage. Weed interference reduced corn leaf space by reducing the enlarged leaf area of every individual leaf and fast senescence of lower leaves. additionally, weed interference up to the 14-leaf stage of corn development obstructed leaf enlargement and emergence in 1989. [2]

Weed control economics.

This book provides AN economic basis for effort problems in weed management for agricultural economists and may result in a bigger appreciation of the social science of weeds and weed management methods for agricultural scientists, directors, advisors and students. Following introductory chapters on plants as weeds, the aims and strategies of weed management and factors poignant the scientific discipline impact of weeds and their assessment in small- and large-scale systems area unit mentioned. Notes on regional and social science issues for the economic assessment of weed management area unit enclosed. [3]

Experimental and empirical evidence shows that reducing weed control in winter cereal fields is a viable strategy for farmers

Modern agriculture wants a paradigm shift to form the world’s food production property whereas mitigating social and environmental externalities. though numerous policies to limit the utilization of agrochemicals have recently been enforced within the international organization, the utilization of each herbicides and fertilizers has remained fairly constant. Farmers are assumed to behave optimally, manufacturing the simplest they will, given the agronomical constraints of their fields. supported this assumption, reducing agrochemicals ought to inevitably have negative effects on food production, or scale back farmers’ incomes. Coupling empirical analysis supported field surveys and experimental trials wherever weed management and chemical element input were manipulated within the same production fields and below real farming conditions, we tend to demonstrate that top use of N plant food or intense weed management slightly increase yields, however that this increase isn’t enough to offset the extra prices incurred by their use. Our experimental style allowed inputs to be varied during a two-factor design, on a gradient spanning from organic to extremely intensive farming, whereas holding all different conditions constant and so avoiding contradictory effects. Quantification of crop yields and gross margins from winter cereal farming showed that reducing dependence on weed management might not hamper cereal production during this system, and is economically profitable at the sphere level on the short term. Our study so contributes to addressing a key gap in our economic data, and offers hope for implementing win-win ways for farmers and also the atmosphere. [4]

Weed Control and Peanut Tolerance Using Pyroxasulfone in Oklahoma

Aims: to work out the spectrum of weed management and peanut tolerance with pyroxasulfone in American state.

Study Design: randomised complete block style with four replications.

Place and length of Study: American state State University Caddo analysis Station close to linear unit. Cobb (35.091º N, 98.275º W) in southwestern American state throughout the 2013-2014 growing seasons.

Methodology: Herbicides were applied with a carbon dioxide compressed gas backpack sprayer victimization Teejet 110015XR nozzles that delivered ninety three L ha-1 at 180kPa. Weed management and peanut injury were visually calculable on a scale of zero indicating no management or plant death to one hundred indicating complete management or plant death, relative to the untreated management. Peanut yields were obtained by excavation every plot individually, air-drying within the field for four to seven d, and harvest peanut pods from every plot with a mix. Visual estimates of weed management and peanut yield were subjected to analysis of variance check|to check} effects of postemergence (POST) weed killer and application temporal arrangement and suggests that were compared with Fisher’s Protected hallucinogen test (0.05).

Results: In 2013, solely treatments that controlled Urochloa texana > eighty fifth were people who enclosed pendimethalin and pyroxasulfone applied preemergence (PRE) and imazapic applied late postemergence (LPOST). Ipomoea hederacea management victimization either pendimethalin applied preplant incorporated (PPI) or flumioxazin applied PRE and imazethapyr applied POST was ≥ seventy fifth.  In 2014, weed killer systems that enclosed imazapic applied POST controlled I. hederacea a minimum of ninety eight whereas no different weed killer systems provided higher than seventy eight management. Peanut flight (4 to 13%) was discovered in 2013 with all PPI and PRE treatments.  In 2013 and 2014, pyroxasulfone and pendimethalin systems applied PRE followed by imazapic applied LPOST made the best peanut flight.

Conclusion: These results indicate that pyroxasulfone is a good weed killer for weed management in American state peanut production. though no peanut yield reductions were discovered, the first season flight in isolated instances ought to be noted. [5]

Reference

[1] Slaughter, D.C., Giles, D.K. and Downey, D., 2008. Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 61(1), pp.63-78. (Web Link)

[2] Hall, M.R., Swanton, C.J. and Anderson, G.W., 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed science, 40(3), pp.441-447. (Web Link)

[3] Auld, B.A., Menz, K.M. and Tisdell, C.A., 1987. Weed control economics. Weed control economics. (Web Link)

[4] Experimental and empirical evidence shows that reducing weed control in winter cereal fields is a viable strategy for farmers

Rui Catarino, Sabrina Gaba & Vincent Bretagnolle

Scientific Reportsvolume 9, Article number: 9004 (2019) (Web Link)

[5] Baughman, T., Grichar, W. and Dotray, P. (2018) “Weed Control and Peanut Tolerance Using Pyroxasulfone in Oklahoma”, Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 21(3), pp. 1-11. doi: 10.9734/JEAI/2018/39881. (Web Link)