Important parameters that influence weed seeds' germination and seedlings' emergence can also affect the efficacy of false seedbed as weed management practice. These parameters consist of environmental factors such as soil temperature, soil water potential, exposure to light, fluctuating temperatures, nitrates concentration, soil pH, and the gaseous environment of the soil. Soil temperature and soil water potential can exert a great influence on composition of the weed flora of a cultivated area. Base soil temperatures and base water potential for germination vary among different weed species and their values can possibly be used to predict which weeds will emerge in a field as well as the timing of emergence. Predicting the main flush of weeds in the field could maximize the efficacy of false seedbed technique as weed management practice. Timing, depth, and type of tillage are important factors affecting weed emergence and, subsequently, the efficacy of false seedbed. The importance of shallow tillage as a weed control method in the false seedbed technique has been highlighted. Further research is needed to understand and explain all the factors that can affect weed emergence so as to maximize the effectiveness of eco-friendly weed management practices such as false seedbed in different soils and under various climatic conditions.

There is growing consideration among farmers and researchers regarding the development of natural herbicides providing sufficient levels of weed control. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of four different pelargonic acid products, three essential oils and two natural products’ mixtures against L. rigidum, A. sterilis and G. aparine. Regarding grass weeds, it was noticed at 7 days after treatment that PA3 treatment (pelargonic acid 3.102% w/v + maleic hydrazide 0.459% w/v) was the least efficient treatment against L. rigidum and A. sterilis. The mixture of lemongrass oil and pelargonic acid resulted in 77% lower dry weight for L. rigidum in comparison to the control. Biomass reduction reached the level of 90% as compared to the control in the case of manuka oil and the efficacy of manuka oil and pelargonic acid mixture was similar. For sterile oat, weed biomass was recorded between 31% and 33% of the control for lemongrass oil, pine oil, PA1 (pelargonic acid 18.67% + maleic hydrazide 3%) and PA4 (pelargonic acid 18.67%) treatments. In addition, the mixture of manuka oil and pelargonic acid reduced weed biomass by 96% as compared to the control. Regarding the broadleaf species G. aparine, PA4 and PA1 treatments provided a 96–97% dry weight reduction compared to the corresponding value recorded for the untreated plants. PA2 (pelargonic acid 50% w/v) treatment and the mixture of manuka oil and pelargonic acid completely eliminated cleaver plants. The observations made for weed dry weight on the species level were similar to those made regarding plant height values recorded for each species. Further research is needed to study more natural substances and optimize the use of natural herbicides as well as natural herbicides’ mixtures in weed management strategies under different soil and climatic conditions.

E. colona is a C4 annual summer grass which is troublesome to major summer annual and perennial crops. Due to recent complaints by the farmers, the objectives of the present study were to evaluate the efficacy of penoxsulam, profoxydim, cycloxydim, cyhalofop-butyl, florpyrauxifen-benzyl and glyphosate against six E. colona accessions, and also to evaluate the response of these accessions to different rates of glyphosate in a dose-response experiment. In the first experiment, herbicides were applied at their maximum recommended label rates, while in the dose-response experiment, glyphosate was applied at six doses corresponding to 0, 1/4X, 1/2X, X, 2X, and 4X of the recommended rate. The dry weight of the biotypes TH8 and TH7 treated with profoxydim was 66% and 68% of the untreated control, respectively. The efficacy of cyhalofop-butyl against three accessions was lower than 30%, while two accessions were susceptible to this herbicide. The efficacy of penoxsulam against the biotypes ET2 and ET4 was lower than 10%, while dry weight of FT5 and TH8 was only reduced by 23%–28% as compared to the control. Cycloxydim application provided control higher than 75% at 21 days after treatment (DAT) of three accessions, while the majority of E. colona accessions was adequately controlled by the application of florpyrauxifen-benzyl. The response of the different accessions to glyphosate varied. The results of the glyphosate dose-response experiment revealed that the GR50 values of the resistant E. colona accessions ET2 and ET4 were up to 1098 and 1220 g a.e. ha−1 of glyphosate, respectively, whereas the GR50 value of the susceptible accession (FT5) was only 98 g a.e. ha−1. The resistance indices of ET2 and ET4 were 12.4 and 11.2, respectively, indicating that they have already developed resistance to glyphosate. Three more accessions could be also of developing resistant to glyphosate. This is the first report of glyphosate resistance from E. colona accessions in Greece, with indications of multiple resistance also present. Further research is needed in order to evaluate the efficacy of several herbicides under different soil and climatic conditions, conduct baseline sensitivity studies, reveal the evolvement of resistance patterns to glyphosate from accessions of Echinochloa spp., and search for alternative options of weed management in annual and perennial crops due to the clear indications of multiple resistance situations.

No abstract

Decision support systems (DSS) have the potential to support farmers to make the right decisions in weed management. DSSs can select the appropriate herbicides for a given field and suggest the minimum dose rates for an herbicide application that can result in optimum weed control. Given that the adoption of DSSs may lead to decreased herbicide inputs in crop production, their potential for creating eco-friendly and profitable weed management strategies is obvious and desirable for the re-designing of farming systems on a more sustainable basis. Nevertheless, it is difficult to stimulate farmers to use DSSs as it has been noticed that farmers have different expectations of decision-making tools depending on their farming styles and usual practices. The function of DSSs requires accurate assessments of weeds within a field as input data; however, capturing the data can be problematic. The development of future DSSs should target to enhance weed management tactics which are less reliant on herbicides. DSSs should also provide information regarding weed seedbank dynamics in the soil in order to suggest management options not only within a single period but also in a rotational view. More aspects ought to be taken into account and further research is needed in order to optimize the practical use of DSSs for supporting farmers regarding weed management issues in various crops and under various soil and climatic conditions.