Weeding Effectiveness and Changes in Soil Physical Properties Using Inter-Row Hoeing and a Robot

Abstract

Weed control is one of the most important technological operations to ensure crop yield and quality in ecological sugar beet production. However, conventional mechanical weed control is labor- and time-intensive and has adverse effects on the soil and the environment. The aim of this study was to experimentally investigate the influence of conventional mechanical and robotic weed control systems on soil properties and to assess the effectiveness of these different weed control methods in ecological sugar beet production. This study examines two different weed control systems: robotic weed control (RWC) and conventional weed control (CWC). Field experimental studies were carried out with a solar-powered field robot and conventional inter-row cultivation (CWC1—first cultivation, CWC2—second cultivation) to determine the effectiveness of mechanical weed control in ecological sugar beet crops. The influence of different weed control systems on the physical properties of the soil in the contact zone between the soil and the tires of weed control machines was investigated. The results showed that the average weed control effectiveness inter-row was higher in the RWC (81%) compared to that in the CWC2 (46%). The overall weed control effectiveness of the robotic weed control in the sugar beet inter-row and intra-row was around 49%. The measurements showed that the weed control process reduced the soil moisture and temperature in all treatments tested. Experimental studies have confirmed that the weed control operation, although carried out with relatively lightweight robots, also has an impact on soil bulk density. RWC weed control resulted in an average increase of 0.16 g cm–3 in soil bulk density in the topsoil layer (0–10 cm) after weeding. Both CWC1 and RWC increased soil penetration resistance (PR). For CWC1, the average increase in topsoil PR after weed control was 20%, while for RWC, the increase was marginal, only around 1%. Automated precision weed control by self-propelled solar-powered field robots is an important solution to reduce the need for tedious and time-consuming manual weeding.

Mechanical Weed Control: Sensor-Based Inter-Row Hoeing in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in the Transylvanian Depression

“…Therefore, effective weed management is crucial. Chemical weed control has currently evolved into a required and unavoidable component of weed management in sugar beet production [11]. The most important herbicide mixtures contain the following active ingredients: metamitron, phenmedipham, and ethofumesate.…”

“…The implementation of mechanical weed control tools in sugar beet production can substitute herbicide treatments and therefore reduce the amount of different herbicides in the environment [17][18][19]. Due to the slow driving speeds and limited working width of the implements, labor efficiency is relatively low compared to chemical weed control [11]. Even more, hoeing in the intra-row area and operating as closely as possible to the crop area are the requirements for a successful mechanical weed control management strategy [20].…”

Competition between Winter Wheat and Cornflower (Centaurea cyanus L.) Resistant or Susceptible to Herbicides under Varying Environmental Conditions in Poland

“…Weed infestation can, among other things, interfere with harvest, increase the crop's contamination and moisture, and even promote the spread of pests and pathogens [1]. However, the greatest damage is usually the result of competition between weeds and crops for nutrients, water, and light leading to a reduction in crop yield [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Crop-weed competition is also affected by factors such as the timing of weed emergence, weed density, and the type of weed species [8].…”

Development of a prototype of weeding robot

“…Additionally, weeds negatively impact the quality of agricultural products and pose risks to human and livestock health. Contaminating and impeding water sources; Certain weed species serve as habitats or hosts for pests and microorganisms that are responsible for causing plant diseases [22][23][24][25][26][27][28].Of the methods commonly employed thus far, manual methods (hand weeding) are frequently cited, but their applicability is limited to small areas with low grass density [29][30][31][32][33]. Presently, the utilization of chemicals for weed eradication is widely regarded as the most efficient approach due to its labor-saving nature, rapid applicability on a large magnitude, and flexibility in timing [34][35][36][37][38].…”

“…Of the methods commonly employed thus far, manual methods (hand weeding) are frequently cited, but their applicability is limited to small areas with low grass density [29][30][31][32][33]. Presently, the utilization of chemicals for weed eradication is widely regarded as the most efficient approach due to its labor-saving nature, rapid applicability on a large magnitude, and flexibility in timing [34][35][36][37][38].…”