Inter-row weed control is used in a wide range of crops, traditionally applied via physical cultivation or banded herbicide application. However, these methods may result in crop damage, herbicide resistance development, or off-target environmental impacts. Electric inter-row weed control presents an alternative, though its potential impact on crop yield requires further investigation. One of the modes of action of electric weed control is the continuous electrode-plant contact method, which passes a current through the weed and into the roots. As the current passes into the roots, it can potentially disperse through the soil to neighbouring root systems. Such off-target current dispersion, particularly in moist topsoil with low resistance, poses potential concern for neighbouring crops when electric inter-row weed control is applied. This research evaluated the continuous electrode-plant contact method, using a ZassoTM XPower machine, in comparison with mowing, across three trials conducted in 2022 and 2023. Both treatments were used to remove target lupin plants adjacent to a row of non-target lupin. Electric weed control was applied to plants in dry soil or following a simulated rainfall event. The trials demonstrated that electric weed control and mowing did not reduce density and biomass of neighbouring non-target lupin plants compared to the untreated control. Likewise, pod and seed production, grain size and protein, as well as grain germinability and vigour of the resulting seedlings was not reduced by these weed control tactics. This research used technology that was not fit for purpose in broad scale grain crops but concludes that electric weed control via the continuous electrode-plant contact method or mowing did not result in crop damage. Therefore, it is unlikely that damage will occur using commercial-grade electric weed control or mowing technology designed for large acreage inter-row weed control, thus offering non-chemical weed management options.

Field studies were conducted to assess the efficacy of physical weed management of Palmer amaranth management in cucumber, peanut, and sweetpotato. Treatments were arranged in a 3 × 4 factorial in which the first factor included a treatment method of electrical, mechanical, or hand-roguing Palmer amaranth control and the second factor consisted of treatments applied when Palmer amaranth was approximately 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 m above the crop canopy. Four wk after treatment (WAT), the electrical applications controlled Palmer amaranth at least 27 percentage points more than the mechanical applications when applied at the 0.3- and 0.6-m timings. At the 0.9- and 1.2-m application timings 4 WAT, electrical and mechanical applications controlled Palmer amaranth by at most 87%. Though hand removal generally resulted in the greatest peanut pod count and total sweetpotato yield, mechanical and electrical control resulted in similar yield to the hand-rogued plots, depending on the treatment timing. With additional research to provide insight into the optimal applications, there is potential for electrical control and mechanical control to be used as alternatives to hand removal. Additional studies were conducted to determine the effects of electrical treatments on Palmer amaranth seed production and viability. Treatments consisted of electricity applied to Palmer amaranth at first visible inflorescence, 2 wk after first visible inflorescence (WAI) or 4 WAI. Treatments at varying reproductive maturities did not reduce the seed production immediately after treatment. However, after treatment, plants primarily died and ceased maturation, reducing seed production assessed at 4 WAI by 93% and 70% when treated at 0 and 2 WAI, respectively. Treatments did not have a negative effect on germination or seedling length.