Paper · 2024 · Agronomy

Mechanical Weed Control: Sensor-Based Inter-Row Hoeing in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in the Transylvanian Depression

Sergiu Cioca Parasca; Michael Spaeth; Teodor Rusu; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Precision agriculture is about applying solutions that serve to obtain a high yield from the optimization of resources and the development of technologies based on the collection and use of precise data. Precision agriculture, including camera-guided row detection and hydraulic steering, is often used as an alternative because crop damage can be decreased and driving speed can be increased, comparable to herbicide applications. The effects of different approaches, such as uncontrolled (UC), mechanical weed control (MWC), herbicide weed control (HWC), and mechanical + herbicide control (MWC + HWC), on weed density and yield of sugar beet were tested and evaluated in two trials (2021 and 2022) in South Transylvania Depression at the tested intervals BBCH 19 and 31. Weed control efficacy (WCE) depends on the emergence of the weeds and a good timing of weed controls in all the trials and methods, though the highest yield of sugar beet roots was recorded in the treatment MWC + HWC, with an increase up to 12–15% (56.48 t ha−1) yield from HWC (50.22 t ha−1) and a yield increase of more than 35–40% than MWC (42.34 t ha−1). Our trials show that it is possible to increase yield and have fewer chemical applications with the introduction of new precision technologies in agriculture, including sensor-guided mechanical controls.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed control efficacy depended on weed emergence and timing.

Treatment
weed controlse0
Outcome
Weed control efficacy (WCE)e0
Qualifier
emergence of the weeds and a good timing of weed controlse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weed control efficacy (WCE) depends on the emergence of the weeds and a good timing of weed controls in all the trials and methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–904 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugar Beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined mechanical and herbicide control produced the highest sugar beet root yield of 56.48 t ha−1.

Treatment
MWC + HWCe0
Outcome
yield of sugar beet rootse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
56.48 t ha−1e0
Qualifier
50.22 t ha−1e0
Comparator
HWCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest yield of sugar beet roots was recorded in the treatment MWC + HWC, with an increase up to 12–15% (56.48 t ha−1) yield from HWC (50.22 t ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 913–1066 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined control increased root yield 12–15% over herbicide control.

Treatment
MWC + HWCe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
12–15%e0
Comparator
HWCe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest yield of sugar beet roots was recorded in the treatment MWC + HWC, with an increase up to 12–15% (56.48 t ha−1) yield from HWC (50.22 t ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 913–1066 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugar Beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–68 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined control increased yield more than 35–40% over mechanical control.

Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
35–40%e0
Qualifier
42.34 t ha−1e0
Comparator
MWCe0

Not reportedTreatment

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a yield increase of more than 35–40% than MWC (42.34 t ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1071–1131 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugar Beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–68 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sensor-guided mechanical control may increase yield and reduce chemical applications.

Outcome
increase yield and have fewer chemical applicationse0
Qualifier
sensor-guided mechanical controlse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it is possible to increase yield and have fewer chemical applications with the introduction of new precision technologies in agriculture, including sensor-guided mechanical controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1154–1335 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugar Beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 58–68 · show in text ↑

herbicide · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

54 papers: 39 positive, 15 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.