Efficacy of Various Mechanical Weeding Methods—Single and in Combination—In Terms of Different Field Conditions and Weed Densities

• Published in: Agronomy (Basel) Vol. 11; no. 10; p. 2084
• Main Authors: Naruhn, Georg-Peter, Peteinatos, Gerassimos G., Butz, Andreas F., Möller, Kurt, Gerhards, Roland
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.10.2021
• Subjects: Agricultural practices; agronomy; Automation; Control methods; Density; Environmental policy; Experiments; Farming; Farming systems; Germany; Harrowing; Herbicides; hoeing; mechanical methods; mechanical weed control; pea; Peas; Public awareness; R&D; Radiation; Regulation; Research & development; Sensors; soybean; Soybeans; Triticum aestivum; Weather; Weed control; Weeds; Wheat; Winter wheat; Germany
• DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11102084
• ISSN: 2073-4395

Public awareness and environmental policies have increased interest in applying non-herbicide weed control methods in conventional farming systems. Even though mechanical weed control has been used for centuries in agricultural practice, continuous developments—both in terms of implements and automation technologies—are continuously improving the potential outcomes. Current mechanical weed control methods were evaluated for their weed control efficacy and effects on yield potential against their equivalent herbicide methods. Furthermore, not much is known about the correlation between weed control efficacy (WCE) of different mechanical methods at varying weed density levels. A total of six experiments in winter wheat (2), peas (2), and soybean (2) were carried out in the years 2018, 2019, and 2020 in southwestern Germany. Harrowing and hoeing treatments at different speeds were carried out and compared to the herbicide treatments and untreated control plots. Regarding the average WCE, the combination of harrowing and hoeing was both the strongest (82%) and the most stable (74–100%) mechanical treatment in the different weed density levels. Whereas, in average, hoeing (72%) and harrowing (71%) were on the same WCE level, but harrowing (49–82%) was more stable than hoeing (40–99%). The grain yields in winter wheat varied between 4.1 Mg∙ha−1 (control) and 6.3 Mg∙ha−1 (harrow), in pea between 2.8 Mg∙ha−1 (hoe slow) and 5.7 Mg∙ha−1 (hoe fast) and in soybean between 1.7 Mg∙ha−1 (control) and 4 Mg∙ha−1 (herbicide). However, there were no significant differences in most cases. The results have shown that it is not possible to pinpoint a specific type of treatment as the most appropriate method for this cultivation, across all of the different circumstances. Different field and weather conditions can heavily affect and impact the expected outcome, giving, each time, an advantage for a specific type of treatment.