Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:32:25.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems, Progress and Organization of Weed Control in Continental Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ewert Åberg
Ewert Åberg*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Husbandry, Royal Agricultural College, Uppsala 7, Sweden
Get access

Extract

At the Third British Weed Control Conference in 1956 I had the pleasure to discuss weed control research and development in Sweden (3). Some of the statements I made at that time will be used as a background to this paper. It was emphasized that there has been continuous change in weed control methods since World War I depending on the introduction of chemical weed killers but also on improved methods for cultivating and using the lands. Use of chemicals have brought with it changes in the weed flora meaning that certain weeds which were not serious in earlier days have now become a menace to the farmers. This brings with it a need for new chemicals with other weed killing properties. But it also brings with it a need for new cultivating methods and a better crop sequence. Cultivated plants are influenced by the chemicals. The effect on the cultivated plants depends on the stage of development of these plants. In uneven fields the harmful effect can be serious as there are always some plants that are sensitive at the time of spraying. The effect of the chemicals may depend on the purity of the acids. In MCPA, for example, the percentage of the 4–isomer, i.e. the 2–methyl–4–chlorophenoxyacetic acid, is important. It should be 95 per cent or slightly above as shown by åberg (1). The after effect of chemicals in the soils may be longer and more severe under northern conditions than under southern. For the choice of crops this must be considered. Thus there is no doubt that today, more than at any earlier period, weed control is a crop production problem. It can not be treated without considering crop production problems. Sometimes there is a feeling over in our part of the world that since the end of World War II chemicals and their properties have been emphasized too much in weed control discussions. Chemicals are, no doubt, important, but they can never get the place they are entitled to, unless our research work in weed control pays attention also to biology and ecology of those plants that we treat; cultivated plants as well as weeds. I believe we are in Europe thinking more about this particular end of the weed control work than you need to do over here. We usually have small farms with a number of different crops on each one of them. Thus we must learn to apply our chemical weed killers or use our cultivated methods in different ways for each one of these crops. For economical reasons and with regard to the supply of food and feed we need high yields per hectare. Every measure on a farm must be chosen with this in mind. Our problems, progress and organization of weed control must then be seen against the background I have now tried to give you.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1958 , pp. 233 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © 1958 Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Åberg, Ewert. Different isomers of phenoxyacetic acids and phenols—their effect and value as weed killers. Annals of the Royal Agric. College of Sweden 21:213–260. 1954.Google Scholar
2. Åberg, Ewert. Chemical weed control in Sweden. Some results and viewpoints. Plant Protection Conference, Fernhurst 1956, pp. 148–157. 1957.Google Scholar
3. Åberg, Ewert. Weed control research and development in Sweden. Proc. Third British Weed Control Conference, Blackpool 1956, pp. 141–164. 1957.Google Scholar
4. Åberg, Ewert, und Wiberg, Hans. Die bekämpfung des wildhafers (Avena fatua) mit mechanischen und chemischen mitteln. Kurzfassungen der Vorträge, IV. Internationaler Pflanzenschutz-Kongress, pp. 57–59. 1957.Google Scholar
5. Audus, L. J. The biological detoxication of hormone herbicides in soil. Plant and Soil III:170–192. 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bachtaler, G. Untersuchung zur keimungsphysiologie des flughafers (Avena fatua L.). Zeitschr. für Acker- und Pflanzenbau 103:128–156. 1957.Google Scholar
7. Beinhauer, Hugo. Untersuchungen über die inaktivierung der dichlorpropionsäure (dalapon) und trichloressigsäure (TCA). Kurzfassungen der Vorträge, IV. Internationaler Pflanzenschutz-Kongress, pp. 74–75. 1957.Google Scholar
8. Bengtsson, Anders. Untersuchungen über den einfluss der tropfengrösse auf die wirkung zweier selektiver unkrautmittel. Ibid., pp. 67–68. 1957.Google Scholar
9. Börner, Horst. Die abgabe organischer verbindungen aus den karyopsen, wurzeln und ernterückständen von roggen (Secale cereale L.), weizen (Triti cum aestivum L.) und gerste (Hordeum vulgare L.) und ihre bedeutung bei der gegenseitigen beeinflussung der höheren pflanzen. Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen 33:33–83. 1956.Google Scholar
10. Dierks, R. Der windhalm und seine bekämpfung. Bayer. Landesanst. für Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenschutz, Amtlicher Pflanzenschutz-dienst, Merkblatt Nr. 20, pp. 1–2. 1957.Google Scholar
11. Fraser, R. P. The mechanics of producing sprays of different characteristics. Plant Protection Conference, Fernhurst 1956, pp. 237–277. 1957.Google Scholar
12. Granström, Birger. Studien über die konkurrenz zwischen Unkräutern und kulturpflanzen. Kurzfassungen der Vorträge, IV. Internationaler Pflanzenschutz-Kongress, pp. 60–61. 1957.Google Scholar
13. Grümmer, G. Die gegenseitige beeinflussung höherer pflanzen. Allelopathie. Jena, pp. 1–162. 1955.Google Scholar
14. Grümmer, G. Die beeinflussung des leinertrages durch unkrauter. Kurzfassungen der vorträge, IV. Internationaler Pflanzenschutz-Kongress, p. 61. 1957.Google Scholar
15. Hagsand, Erik, and Åberg, Ewert. The effect of 4K–2M and 2,4–D weed killers on Galeopsis spp. and Spergula arvensis L. Annals of the Royal Agric. College of Sweden 17:37–44. 1950.Google Scholar
16. Hellqvist, Helge. The effect of volume application rate on the retention and activity of herbicides. Annals of the Royal Agric. College of Sweden 22:41–92. 1955.Google Scholar
17. Håkansson, Sigurd. Biology, ecology and control of wild onion and yellow rattle. Proc. Third British Weed Control Conference, Blackpool, 1956, pp. 207–210. 1957.Google Scholar
18. Jensen, H. L., and Petersen, , Ingvard, H. Decomposition of hormone herbicides by bacteria. Acta Agric. Scandinavica 11:215–231. 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Kommedahl, Thor. Quack grass can be toxic to crop seedlings. Down to Earth 13 (2):4–5. 1957.Google Scholar
20. Köhler, Edmund. Zusammenhänge zwischen der behandlung von pflanzen mit herbiziden wuchsstoffen und ihrem befall durch pathogene pilze. Arbeit aus dem Inst. för Pflanzenschutz der Landw. Hochschule Hohenheim, pp. 1–94. 1955.Google Scholar
21. Lazenby, A. The establishment and growth of wild onion (Allium vineale L.) from aerial bulbils. Proc. Third British Weed Control Conference, Blackpool, 1956, pp. 211–219. 1957.Google Scholar
22. Orth, H. Zur bekämpfung von Allium vineale in weiden und wiesen. Zeitschr. für Acker- und Pflanzenbau 99:479–487. 1955.Google Scholar
23. Osvald, Hugo. An antagonism between plants. Proc. of the Seventh Intern. Botanical Congress, Stockholm, 1950, pp. 167–171. 1953.Google Scholar
24. Petersen, H. Ingvard. Om mulighederna for flyvehavrens bekaempelse. Tolvmandsbladet 28:185–189. 1956.Google Scholar
25. Pfeiffer, R. K. Technical aspects of Fisons 18–15. Press Conference, London, pp. 7–8. 1958.Google Scholar
26. Rademacher, Bernhard. Über die lichtverhältnisse in Kulturpflanzenbestånden, insbesondere in hinblick auf den unkrautwuchs. Zeitschi. für Acker- und Pflanzenbau 92:129–165. 1950.Google Scholar
27. Seischab, F. Die fruchtfolge als wichtigste massnahme zur bekämpfung des flughafers. Prakt. Blätter für Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenschutz 51:167–171. 1956.Google Scholar
28. Slaats, M., und Stryckers, J. Empfindlichkeit verschiedener grünlandunkräuter für wuchsstoffherbizide. Kurzfassungen der Vorträge, IV. Internationaler Pflanzenschutz-Kongress, p. 72. 1957.Google Scholar
29. Schmidt, Oskar. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die herbizide wirkung der synthetischen wuchsstoffe 2,4–D und MCPA. Mitt. aus der Biol. Zentralanst. für Land- und Forst-wirtschaft, Berlin-Dahlem, 77:1–119. 1954.Google Scholar
30. Stapp, C. und Freter, R. Untersuchungen über die wirkung von 2,4–D im boden. I. Phytopathologische Zeitschr. 18:365–375. 1952.Google Scholar
31. Stapp, C. und Freter, R. Untersuchungen über die wirkung von 2,4–D im boden. II. Ibid. 19:20–33. 1952.Google Scholar
32. Stryckers, J. La lutte contre l'Epi du vent. Revue de l'Agriculture 4:1600–1605. 1951.Google Scholar
33. Thiegs, B. J. The stability of dalapon in soils. Down to Earth 11 (2):2–4. 1955.Google Scholar
34. Vidme, T. Våre nye våpen i ugraskampen. Statens Plantevern, Ugrasbiologisk Avdeling, Saertryck nr 4:1–8. 1949.Google Scholar
35. Woodford, E. K. The control of weeds in cereal crops in Europe by chemical methods. Field Crop Abstracts 9:1–8. 1956.Google Scholar