Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:15:32.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of mechanical weed control on Italian flint varieties of maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2018

Silvia Fogliatto ,
Marco Milan ,
Fernando De Palo ,
Aldo Ferrero  and
Francesco Vidotto
Silvia Fogliatto*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari-Università degli Studi di Torino Largo Paolo Braccini, 2 - 10095 Grugliasco, TO, Italy
Marco Milan
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari-Università degli Studi di Torino Largo Paolo Braccini, 2 - 10095 Grugliasco, TO, Italy
Fernando De Palo
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari-Università degli Studi di Torino Largo Paolo Braccini, 2 - 10095 Grugliasco, TO, Italy
Aldo Ferrero
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari-Università degli Studi di Torino Largo Paolo Braccini, 2 - 10095 Grugliasco, TO, Italy
Francesco Vidotto
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali e Alimentari-Università degli Studi di Torino Largo Paolo Braccini, 2 - 10095 Grugliasco, TO, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Silvia Fogliatto, silvia.fogliatto@unito.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control is one of the most important practices for a satisfying crop performance. In organic farming, weeds are mainly controlled by using mechanical methods, which may result in incomplete crop selectivity. Maize is one of the crops for which mechanical weed control is commonly applied. To assess weed control efficacy and the possible crop injuries caused by mechanical interventions (harrowing, hoeing and ridging), a field experiment was carried out in 2013–2014 on traditional flint Italian varieties of maize (Marano, Ottofile, Pignoletto, Nostrano and the hybrid Maranello) suited for organic food production. The study included the following treatments: weed control with a spring tine harrow + hoeing and ridging (STH), manual weed removal all season long (MWR), spring tine harrowing + manual weed removal (STH + MWR) and an untreated check (CHK). In the 2 years, the experiment was carried out in two similar fields in which 60 plots (6 × 10 m) were arranged in a RCBD with three replications. Weed control efficacy was assessed by determining weed density, weed species composition and weed cover after each mechanical intervention in the STH and CHK plots. Weed diversity indices were also calculated at the final assessment. The possible crop injuries caused by mechanical means were assessed by determining maize plant height, number of leaves, and plant density after each mechanical intervention. At maturity, maize yield and other yield-related traits (1000-seed weight, hectolitre weight, and grain moisture) were determined. The results showed that the mechanical treatments lowered the weed infestation, without changing weed species dominance and slightly lowering species richness; even though they were not able to completely control the weeds. In both years, the final weed density in STH plots was of about 50 plants m−2. Better weed control was obtained when weeds were at early growth stages and with a repeated number of harrowing. Mechanical weeding did not cause significant injury in terms of plant height nor density; however, for Marano and Maranello, a delay in the crop cycle was observed as shown by the lower number of leaves in STH compared with MWR. Yield ranged from 0.3 t ha−1 for Marano CHK to 10.4 t ha−1 for the hybrid Maranello in MWR + STH. Yield and yield-related traits were not affected by mechanical weeding.

Keywords

Crop injurymaize yieldorganic farmingspring-tine harrowingweeds
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 447 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdin, OA, Zhou, XM, Cloutier, D, Coulman, DC, Faris, MA and Smith, DL (2000) Cover crops and interrow tillage for weed control in short season maize (Zea mays). European Journal of Agronomy 12(2), 93–102.Google Scholar
Armengot, L, José-María, L, Chamorro, L and Sans, FX (2013) Weed harrowing in organically grown cereal crops avoids yield losses without reducing weed diversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33(2), 405–411.Google Scholar
Bàrberi, P (2002) Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Research 42(3), 177–193.Google Scholar
Begna, SH, Hamilton, RI, Dwyer, LM, Stewart, DW, Cloutier, D, Liu, A and Smith, DL (2001) Response of corn hybrids differing in canopy architecture to chemical and mechanical (rotary hoeing) weed control: morphology and yield. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 186(3), 167–173.Google Scholar
Bond, W (2007) Non-Chemical weed management. In Naylor, REL (ed.). Weed Management Handbook Ninth Edition. Oxford; Malden, MA: Published for the British Crop Protection Council by Blackwell Science, pp. 280–301.Google Scholar
Ceddia, MG and Cerezo, ER (2008) A Descriptive Analysis of Conventional, Organic and GM Crop and Certified Seed Production in the EU. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
Cirujeda, A, Melander, B, Rasmussen, K and Rasmussen, IA (2003) Relationship between speed, soil movement into the cereal row and intra-row weed control efficacy by weed harrowing. Weed Research 43(4), 285–296.Google Scholar
Clements, DR, Weise, SF and Swanton, CJ (1994) Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Cloutier, D, Van Der Weide, RY, Peruzzi, A and Leblanc, ML (2007) Mechanical weed management. In Upadhaya, MK and Blackshaw, RE (eds). Non-chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford, UK: CABI, pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Duerinckx, K, Mouazen, AM, Anthonis, J and Ramon, H (2005) Effects of spring-tine settings and operational conditions on the mechanical performance of a weed harrow tine. Biosystems Engineering 91(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, ML 2008. Assessment of variance in measurement of hectolitre mass of wheat and maize, using equipment from different grain producing and exporting countries. Msc thesis, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
Fogelberg, F and Gustavsson, AMD (1998) Resistance against uprooting in carrots (Daucus carota) and annual weeds: a basis for selective mechanical weed control. Weed Research 38(3), 183–190.Google Scholar
Gilbert, P-A, Vanasse, A and Angers, DA (2009) Harrowing for weed control: impacts on mineral nitrogen dynamics, soil aggregation and wheat production. Soil and Tillage Research 103(2), 373–380.Google Scholar
Hall, MR, Swanton, CJ and Anderson, GW (1992) The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Science 40(3), 441–447.Google Scholar
Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) (2016) Italia in cifre 2016. www.istat.it [Internet]. Available at http://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/12/ItaliaCifre2016.pdf.Google Scholar
José-María, L and Sans, FX (2011) Weed seedbanks in arable fields: effects of management practices and surrounding landscape: weed seedbanks and agricultural intensity. Weed Research 51(6), 631–640.Google Scholar
Kolb, LN and Gallandt, ER (2012) Weed management in organic cereals: advances and opportunities. Organic Agriculture 2(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Kouwenhoven, JK (1997) Intra-row mechanical weed control-possibilities and problems. Soil and Tillage Research 41(1–2), 87–104.Google Scholar
Kurstjens, DAG and Kropff, MJ (2001) The impact of uprooting and soil-covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing. Weed Research 41(3), 211–228.Google Scholar
Kurstjens, DAG, Perdok, UD and Goense, D (2000) Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Research 40(5), 431–447.Google Scholar
Kurstjens, DAG, Kropff, MJ and Perdok, UD (2004) Method for predicting selective uprooting by mechanical weeders from plant anchorage forces. Weed Science 52(1), 123–132.Google Scholar
Laguë, C and Khelifi, M (2001) Energy use and time requirements for different weeding strategies in grain corn. Canadian Biosystems Engineering 43, 213–221.Google Scholar
Lundkvist, A (2009) Effects of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals. Weed Research 49(4), 409–416.Google Scholar
Lyon, DJ, Blackshaw, RE and Gill, GS (2009) Cutting down on weeds to cut a cleaner wheat crop. In Carver, BF (ed.). Wheat Science and Trade. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 251–272.Google Scholar
Meissle, M, Mouron, P, Musa, T, Bigler, F, Pons, X, Vasileiadis, VP, Otto, S, Antichi, D, Kiss, J, Pálinkás, Z, Dorner, Z, Van Der Weide, R, Groten, J, Czembor, E, Adamczyk, J, Thibord, J-B, Melander, B, Nielsen, GC, Poulsen, RT, Zimmermann, O, Verschwele, A and Oldenburg, E (2009) Pests, pesticide use and alternative options in European maize production: current status and future prospects: pest management in European maize production. Journal of Applied Entomology 134(5), 357–375.Google Scholar
Melander, B (2014) Physical and cultural weed control - status and future directions. XXIX Brazilian Weed Science Conference Brazilian Weed Science Society, Gramado, Brazil, 1–9.Google Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, IA and Bàrberi, P (2005) Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control-examples from European research. Weed Science 53(3), 369–381.Google Scholar
Moss, SR (2010) Integrated weed management (IWM): will it reduce herbicide use? Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences 75(2), 9–17.Google Scholar
Mulder, TA and Doll, JD (1993) Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technology 7(2), 382–389.Google Scholar
Pannacci, E and Tei, F (2014) Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on weed control, weed seed rain and crop yield in maize, sunflower and soyabean. Crop Protection 64, 51–59.Google Scholar
Piazza, C (2004) Mais, coltivazioni in aumento. Inserto /Liste bio. ww.crpv.it [Internet]. Available at http://www.crpv.it/doc/5192/listamaisago04.pdf.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D, McLaughlin, L, Zepp, A, Lakitan, B, Kraus, T, Kleinman, P, Vancini, F, Roach, WJ, Graap, E, Keeton, WS and Selig, G (1991) Environmental and economic effects of reducing pesticide use. BioScience 41(6), 402–409.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J, Kurtzmann, JI and Jensen, A (2004) Tolerance of competitive spring barley cultivars to weed harrowing. Weed Research 44(6), 446–452.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J, Bibby, BM and Schou, AP (2008) Investigating the selectivity of weed harrowing with new methods. Weed Research 48(6), 523–532.Google Scholar
Roberts, HA (1984) Crop and weed emergence patterns in relation to time of cultivation and rainfall. Annals of Applied Botany 105(2), 263–275.Google Scholar
Sanyal, D, Bhowmik, PC, Anderson, RL and Shrestha, A (2008) Revisiting the perspective and progress of integrated weed management. Weed Science 56(1), 161–167.Google Scholar
Silva, PSLE, Mesquita, SSX, Antônio, RP and Silva, PIBE (2010) Number and time of weeding effects on maize grain yield. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 3(2), 204–213.Google Scholar
Sowinski, J, Kristensen, IS and Hermansen, JE 2002. A Field Study of Maize Yield on Mixed Organic and Conventional Dairy Farms in Denmark in 2001. Jelgava: Scientific aspects of organic farming Latvia University of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Spagnolo, S, Pinna, M, Gamba, U, Zaccara, P, Possetto, D and Valoti, P (2005) Prova di coltivazione biologica di antichi mais piemontesi destinati all'alimentazione umana. BOLLETTINO DI AGRICOLTURA BIOLOGICA A CURA DEL CRAB (Reference Center for Organic Farming of Turin province) 2, 47–57.Google Scholar
Steinmann, H-H (2002) Impact of harrowing on the nitrogen dynamics of plants and soil. Soil and Tillage Research 65(1), 53–59.Google Scholar
Tolera, A, Sundstøl, F and Said, AN (1998) The effect of stage of maturity on yield and quality of maize grain and stover. Animal Feed Science and Technology 75(2), 157–168.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M, Dibo, AA, Aguilara, A, Weise, SF and Swanton, CJ (1994) Effect of crop density on weed interference in maize. Agronomy Journal 86(4), 591–595.Google Scholar
Ulber, L, Steinmann, H-H, Klimek, S and Isselstein, J (2009) An on-farm approach to investigate the impact of diversified crop rotations on weed species richness and composition in winter wheat. Weed Research 49(5), 534–543.Google Scholar
Upadhyaya, MK and Blackshaw, RE (2007) Preface. In Upadhyaya, MK and Blackshaw, RE (eds.). Non-chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford, UK: CABI, pp. ix–x.Google Scholar
Van der Weide, RY, Bleeker, PO, Achten, V, Lotz, LAP, Fogelberg, F and Melander, B (2008) Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Research 48(3), 215–224.Google Scholar
Vanhala, P, Kurstjens, D, Ascard, J, Bertram, A, Cloutier, DC, Mead, A, Raffaelli, M and Rasmussen, J (2004) Guidelines for physical weed control research: flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation. Proceedings 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, 194–225, pp. 194–225.Google Scholar
Vasileiadis, VP, Otto, S, van Dijk, W, Urek, G, Leskovšek, R, Verschwele, A, Furlan, L and Sattin, M (2015) On-farm evaluation of integrated weed management tools for maize production in three different agro-environments in Europe: agronomic efficacy, herbicide use reduction, and economic sustainability. European Journal of Agronomy 63, 71–78.Google Scholar
Vidotto, F, Tesio, F, Patracchini, C, Boni, A and Ferrero, A (2007) Evaluation of Damage Caused by Spring Tine Harrowing in Maize. Hamar, Norvegia: European Weed Research Society-14th EWRS Symposium EWRS, pp. 81–81.Google Scholar
Vidotto, F, Fogliatto, S, Milan, M and Ferrero, A (2016) Weed communities in Italian maize fields as affected by pedo-climatic traits and sowing time. European Journal of Agronomy 74, 38–46.Google Scholar