A Non-Chemical System for Online Weed Control

Non-chemical weed control methods need to be directed towards a site-specific weeding approach, in order to be able to compete the conventional herbicide equivalents. A system for online weed control was developed. It automatically adjusts the tine angle of a harrow and creates different levels of intensity: from gentle to aggressive. Two experimental plots in a maize field were harrowed with two consecutive passes. The plots presented from low to high weed infestation levels. Discriminant capabilities of an ultrasonic sensor were used to determine the crop and weed variability of the field. A controlling unit used ultrasonic readings to adjust the tine angle, producing an appropriate harrowing intensity. Thus, areas with high crop and weed densities were more aggressively harrowed, while areas with lower densities were cultivated with a gentler treatment; areas with very low densities or without weeds were not treated. Although the weed development was relatively advanced and the soil surface was hard, the weed control achieved by the system reached an average of 51% (20%–91%), without causing significant crop damage as a result of harrowing. This system is proposed as a relatively low cost, online, and real-time automatic harrow that improves the weed control efficacy, reduces energy consumption, and avoids the usage of herbicide.

[1]  Martin Weis,et al.  An Ultrasonic System for Weed Detection in Cereal Crops , 2012, Sensors.

[2]  Martin Weis,et al.  Development and Testing of a Decision Making Based Method to Adjust Automatically the Harrowing Intensity , 2013, Sensors.

[3]  R. Gerhards,et al.  Precision farming for weed management: techniques , 2008, Gesunde Pflanzen.

[4]  Andrea Peruzzi,et al.  Finger-Harrowing of Durum Wheat under Different Tillage Systems , 2000 .

[5]  S. Christensen,et al.  Real‐time weed detection, decision making and patch spraying in maize, sugarbeet, winter wheat and winter barley , 2003 .

[6]  Jesper Rasmussen,et al.  Testing harrows for mechanical control of annual weeds in agricultural crops , 1992 .

[7]  J. Juul Rasmussen,et al.  Investigating the selectivity of weed harrowing with new methods , 2008 .

[8]  I. Heap.  International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds , 1997 .

[9]  Chun-Chieh Yang,et al.  Development of a herbicide application map using artificial neural networks and fuzzy logic , 2003 .

[10]  M. Kropff,et al.  EWRS and the challenges for weed research at the start of a new millennium. , 2000 .

[11]  H. S. Wolff,et al.  iRun: Horizontal and Vertical Shape of a Region-Based Graph Compression , 2022, Sensors.

[12]  J. Zadoks.  A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals , 1974 .

[13]  H. T. Søgaard,et al.  Automatic Control of a Finger Weeder with Respect to the Harrowing Intensity at Varying Soil Structures , 1998 .

[14]  Martin J. Kropff,et al.  The impact of uprooting and soil‐covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing , 2001 .

[15]  B. Gerowitt,et al.  Weed economic thresholds in cereals in the Federal Republic of Germany , 1990 .

[16]  R. Sanz,et al.  A review of methods and applications of the geometric characterization of tree crops in agricultural activities , 2012 .

[18]  Alexandre Escolà,et al.  Weed discrimination using ultrasonic sensors , 2011 .

[19]  R. Gerhards,et al.  Evaluation of two patch spraying systems in winter wheat and maize , 2012 .

[20]  A. Escolà,et al.  Ultrasonic and LIDAR Sensors for Electronic Canopy Characterization in Vineyards: Advances to Improve Pesticide Application Methods , 2011, Sensors.

[21]  Bo Melander,et al.  Relationship between speed, soil movement into the cereal row and intra‐row weed control efficacy by weed harrowing , 2003 .

[22]  Jesper Rasmussen,et al.  Selective Weed Harrowing in Cereals , 1995 .

[23]  Erich-Christian Oerke,et al.  Precision Crop Protection - the Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity , 2014 .