Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:22:58.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical weed control in protected leaf-beet in central Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2010

Michele Raffaelli ,
Marco Fontanelli ,
Christian Frasconi ,
Marco Ginanni  and
Andrea Peruzzi
Michele Raffaelli*
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Marco Fontanelli
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Christian Frasconi
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Marco Ginanni
Affiliation:
CIRAA ‘Enrico Avanzi’, University of Pisa, via Vecchia di Marina 6, 56010 S. Piero a Grado, Pisa, Italy.
Andrea Peruzzi
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leaf-beet is a typical and very important protected cultivation crop in central Italy. In leaf-beet protected cultivation, weed control is one of the most important problems because of its fairly long crop cycle (approximately 4–5 months). The aim of this research was to set up an efficient non chemical weed control strategy performed with innovative machines built and set up by the University of Pisa. A two-year (2006–2007) ‘on-farm’ experimental trial was carried out in Crespina (PI). A conventional weed management technique (consisting of one pre-transplanting chemical treatment) was compared with an innovative physical weed control strategy in an organic production system (consisting of using a stale seedbed technique, in several post-emergence precision hoeing and in-row hand-weeding treatments). In the conventional technique, leaf-beet was manually transplanted, while it was sown with a precision pneumatic planter in the organic system. All innovative machines for physical weed control were adjusted and set up for the protected cultivation. Similar yields were recorded for the two systems in this two-year trial. Total labor time (for weed management and crop planting) was appreciably lower in the conventional system in the first year of the experiment (−67%), while in the second year, some improvement in the physical weed control techniques decreased labor needs with respect to the conventional technique (−40%). Weed dry biomass at harvest was significantly lower in the organic cropping system (on average −50%).

Keywords

organic farming systemmachines for physical weed controlrolling harrowprecision hoeflaming machine
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Special Issue 1: “Food for Life”: Looking Beyond the Horizon , March 2010 , pp. 8 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1REGOLAMENTO CE 2078/92, Gazzetta Ufficiale delle Comunità Europee del 30.07.1992, p. 85–89.Google Scholar
2REGOLAMENTO CE 2092/91, Gazzetta Ufficiale delle Comunità Europee del 22.07.1991, p. 1–15.Google Scholar
3Bàrberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Research 42:176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Bond, W. and Grundy, A.C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Balsari, P., Airoldi, G., and Ferrero, A. 2002. Mechanical and physical weed control in maize. In Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, 11–13 March 2002, p. 18–31.Google Scholar
6Cloutier, D. and Leblanc, M.L. 2002. Effect of the combination of the stale seedbed technique with cultivations on weed control in maize. In Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, 11–13 March 2002, p. 17.Google Scholar
7Cloutier, D. and Leblanc, M.L. 2004. Crop growth stage susceptibility to rotary hoe cultivation in narrow row and wide row soyabean cropping systems. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, 8–10 March 2004, p. 87–91.Google Scholar
8Dal Re, L. and Innocenti, A. 2002. Experiences related to the use of the weeding harrow and of the roll-star cultivator in Emilia Romagna for weed control on hard and common wheat, sunflower and soyabean in organic agriculture. In Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, 11–13 March 2002, p. 126–128.Google Scholar
9Leblanc, M.L., Cloutier, D., Duval, J., and Weill, A. 2007. Physical control of ragweed in soybean. In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 21.Google Scholar
10Raffaelli, M., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., and Di Ciolo, S. 2002. Mechanical weed control in sunflower and soyabean crops using spring-tine harrow: results of two-year trials. Agricoltura Mediterranea 132:112–121.Google Scholar
11Raffaelli, M., Bàrberi, P., Peruzzi, A., and Ginanni, M. 2005. Mechanical weed control in maize: evaluation of weed harrowing and hoeing system. Agricoltura Mediterranea 135(1):33–43.Google Scholar
12Rasmussen, J. 1992. Testing harrows for mechanical control of annual weeds in agricultural crops. Weed Research 32:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Bàrberi, P., Silvestri, N., Peruzzi, A., and Raffaelli, M. 2000. Finger-harrowing of durum wheat under different tillage systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Leblanc, M.L. and Cloutier, D. 2004. The effect of blind harrowing using a flex-tine harrow or a rotary hoe combined with manure amendment on bread wheat yield. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, 8–10 March 2004, p. 96.Google Scholar
15Rasmussen, J. 2004. The effect of sowing date, stale seedbed, row width and mechanical weed control on weeds and yields of organic winter wheat. Weed Research 44:12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Verschwele, A. 2007. Reducing weed infestation in winter wheat by sowing technique. In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 91–96.Google Scholar
17Ascard, J., Olstedt, N., and Bengtsson, H. 2000. Mechanical weed control using inter-row cultivation and torsion weeders in vining pea. In Fourth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Elspeet, 20–22 March 2000, p. 41.Google Scholar
18Bleeker, P.O., van der Schans, D.A., and van der Weide, R.Y. 2004. Different strategies to improve mechanical weed control in bulb onion. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, 8–10 March 2004, p. 78–81.Google Scholar
19Bleeker, P.O., van der Schans, D.A., and van der Weide, R.Y. 2007. New ways of sowing or planting onions for innovative intra-row weeders. In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 103–104.Google Scholar
20Cirujeda, A., Anzalone, A., Pardo, G., Leon, M., and Zaragoza, C. 2007. Mechanical weed control in processing tomato. In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 41–52.Google Scholar
21Fogelberg, F. 1998. Physical weed control—intra-row brush weeding and photocontrol in carrots (Daucus carota L.). PhD dissertation, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.Google Scholar
22Fogelberg, F. 1999. Night-time soil cultivation and intra-row brush weeding for weed control in carrots (Daucus carota L.). Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Fogelberg, F. 2007. Reduction of manual weeding labour in vegetable crops-what can we expect from torsion weeding and weed harrowing. In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 113–116.Google Scholar
24Kurstjens, D.A.G. and Bleeker, P. 2000. Optimising torsion weeders and finger weeders. In Fourth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Elspeet, 20–22 March 2000, p. 30–32.Google Scholar
25Leinonen, P., Saastomoinen, A., and Vilmunen, J. 2004. Finger weeder for cabbage and lettuce cultures. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, 8–10 March 2004, p. 98.Google Scholar
26Melander, B. 1997. Optimization of the adjustment of a vertical axis rotary brush weeder for intra-row weed control in row crops. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 68:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Raffaelli, M., and Borelli, M. 2004. Physical weed control in organic spinach production. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway, 8–10 March 2004, p. 171–179.Google Scholar
28Peruzzi, A., Raffaelli, M., Ginanni, M., and Borelli, M. 2004. Physical weed control in organic carrot production. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, 8–10 March 2004, p. 24–38.Google Scholar
29Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Fontanelli, M., Raffaelli, M., and Bàrberi, P. 2007. Innovative strategies for on-farm weed management in organic carrot. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(4):246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Raffaelli, M., and Fontanelli, M. 2007. Physical weed control in organic chicory cultivated in the Fucino Valley (Italy). In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 22–31.Google Scholar
31Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Raffaelli, M., and Fontanelli, M. 2007. Physical weed control in organic fennel cultivated in the Fucino Valley (Italy). In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 32–40.Google Scholar
32Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Frasconi, C., and Lulli, L. 2007. Physical weed control in organic carrot in the Catania plain (Sicily-South Italy). In Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, 11–14 March 2007, p. 41–52.Google Scholar
33Radics, L., Gàl, I., and Pusztai, P. 2002. Different combinations of weed management methods in organic carrot. In Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, 11–13 March 2002, p. 137–146.Google Scholar
34Raffaelli, M., Bàrberi, P., Peruzzi, A., and Ginanni, M. 2004. Options for mechanical weed control in string bean. Agricoltura Mediterranea 134(2):92–100.Google Scholar
35Raffaelli, M., Filippi, F., Peruzzi, A., and Graifenberg, A. 2004. Flaming for intra-row weed control in Globe Artichoke. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer 8–10 March 2004, p. 139–142.Google Scholar
36Cirujeda, A., Melander, B., Rasmussen, K., and Rasmussen, J. 2002. Relationship between speed, soil movement into the cereal row and intra-row weed control efficacy by weed harrowing. In 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, 11–13 March 2002, p. 105–111.Google Scholar
37Fogelberg, F. and Dock Gustavsson, A.M. 1998. Resistance against uprooting in carrots (Daucus carota) and annual weeds: a basis for selective mechanical weed control. Weed Research 38:183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Kurstjens, D.A.G., Perdok, U.D., and Goense, D. 2000. Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Research 40:431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Peruzzi, A., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Ginanni, M., Lulli, L., and Frasconi, C. 2008. The rolling harrow: a new operative machine for physical weed control. In AgEng2008 International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, Crete, Greece, 23–25 June 2008, paper 1177932.Google Scholar
40Søgaard, H.T. 1998. Automatic control of finger weeder with respect to the harrowing intensity at varying soil structures. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 70:157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Vanhala, P., Kurstjens, D., Ascard, J., Bertram, A., Cloutier, D., Mead, A., Raffaelli, M., and Rasmussen, J. 2004. Guidelines for physical weed control research: flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation. In Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, 8–10 March 2004, p. 194–225.Google Scholar
42Systat 2004. Systat version 11. Systat Software, London, UK.Google Scholar