3 Articulo de Analisis

Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro
Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: A review

Euro Pannacci*, Boris Lattanzi, Francesco Tei
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno, 74, 06121 Perugia, Italy
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In minor crops the low availability or absence of herbicides impose to adopt an integrated use of non-
Received 6 October 2016 chemical weed control methods. Minor crops include mostly vegetables, fruits, but also seed crops,
Received in revised form herbs and plants for medicinal use and spices. Minor crops account for an EU production value of more
2 January 2017
than V 60 billion per year, representing more than 20% of the value of EU's total agricultural production.
Accepted 25 January 2017
Sustainable production of minor crops is vital for both human health and national economies as it
Available online 2 February 2017
contributes to agricultural productivity as well as a diverse and nutritional food supply, and food security.
Weed control vary depending on technical and economical factors such as cultivation system (open air or
Keywords:
Minor crops
greenhouse), date of sowing or transplanting, market (fresh market, conservation industry, trans-
Mechanical weed control formation industry, seeds industry) and knowledge. In this context, weed control with non-chemical
Physical weed control methods can differ a lot due to the different peculiarities of minor crops. A review on the integrated
Integrated weed management weed management in minor crops using non-chemical methods could be useful to help the research to
provide effective and sustainable solutions, push policies to deliver funding in order to improve from
farmers the communication and the adoption of integrated non-chemical weed management strategies.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2. Cultural weed control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.1. Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2. Crop rotation, cover crops, intercropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.3. Tillage and stale seedbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4. Varieties selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.5. Crop establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.6. Irrigation and fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3. Mechanical weed control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1. Inter-row cultivators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1.1. Hoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1.2. Brush-weeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.1.3. Split-hoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2. Intra-row cultivators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.1. Finger-weeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.2. Torsion weeder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.3. Flex-tine harrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.4. Manual weeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4. Physical weed control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.1. Mulching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2. Solarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.3. Flaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Pannacci).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.01.012
0261-2194/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58 45
4.4. Steaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5. Biological weed control methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6. “Case studies”: some examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1. Introduction management in minor crops, offering a synthesis and some ideas

on non-chemical weed management strategies that could be useful
A combined use of different weed control methods (agronomic, to help develop practical and sustainable solutions for European
cultural, physical, mechanical and chemical) is required in an In- farmers.
tegrated Weed Management System (IWMS) (Buhler, 2002). This
strategy is important to decrease the use of herbicides in agricul- 2. Cultural weed control methods
tural systems (Berti et al., 2001). The use of non-chemical weed
tactics in minor crops are important due to scarce availability of 2.1. Prevention
chemical compounds (Melander and Ba rberi, 2004; Upadhyaya and
Blackshaw, 2007). An IWMS is accomplished by two steps: 1) The main objective is to prevent weeds spreading and to avoid
management of weed community and 2) weed control (Berti et al., the introduction of new weed species. This aim can be accom-
2001). Management of weed community includes actions in crop plished by following these basic principles: use the seeds with high
and weed community. Actions on crop are represented by variety pureness rate; clean tractors and mechanical tools if they have
choice, densities of crops, mode and date of sowing or trans- worked in a field infested with perennial weed; filter the irrigation
planting, in-row and intra-row distances, irrigation method, water; use an efficient hydraulic system to avoid water stagnation,
fertilization, the use of cover crops, etc. These actions are important spread of some perennial weeds (e.g. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.,
to improve crop competitiveness against weeds. Actions on weed Equisetum spp.) and low crop growth rate; eliminate weeds that are
community are required to maintain a balanced weed flora and to difficult and onerous to be controlled, before their dissemination
reduce soil seedbank (Graziani et al., 2012). The first goal is reached (Graziani et al., 2008a) (Table 1).
by the use of crop rotation, cover crops and intercropping, while the In highly infested fields, it is recommended to avoid cultivation
second goal by cutting or uprooting weeds before they spread their of species with poor competitiveness such as carrot, onion, leek and
seeds (e.g. stale seedbed, mechanical control). garlic. It is also advisable to avoid cultivation of asparagus and
In the European Union, a minor crop is defined as crop that is medicinal plants in presence of perennial weeds (Lichtenhahn
cultivated on a cultivation area of <10,000 >600 ha, the production et al., 2005).
is lower than 200,000 tons per year and the daily dietary intake In the greenhouse, the preventive measures are based on sani-
contribution is <7.5 >1.5 g/day (European Commission, 2011). tation and include the following actions: avoid to introduce weed
Whilst many major crops, such as cereals and maize, benefit from propagules (seed, rhizomes, tubers, etc.) in the greenhouse by using
the access to a high number of herbicides, a wide range of minor sterile substrates; introduce only “clean” plant materials; control
crops grown in Europe suffers by the lack of herbicides (Tei and weeds outside of the greenhouse; screen vents and other openings
Pannacci, 2008; Lamichhane et al., 2015). Minor crops include to limit the introduction of windblown seed; use a physical barrier
mostly vegetables (i.e. leafy vegetables except lettuce, cabbages such as a weed block fabric to limit weed establishment on
except cauliflower, radish, turnip, garlic, asparagus etc.), fruits, but greenhouse floors; regularly hand pull any escaped weeds before
also seed crops, herbs and plants for medicinal use and spices. their dissemination (Neal, 2015).
Minor crops account for an EU production value of more than V 60
billion per year, representing more than 20% of the value of EU's
total agricultural production (European Commission, 2014). Minor 2.2. Crop rotation, cover crops, intercropping
crops have the following features: 1) a large number of species 2)
low acreage of cultivation; 3) cultivated mainly by small farmers Crop rotation has a wide range of influence toward weed com-
and different farm management; 4) diverse organization form munity and greatly prevents the establishment of dominant weed
(industrial, familiar, etc.) with a different level of technology, species (Hosseini et al., 2014; Graziani et al., 2012).
marketing and merchandise. Weed control vary depending on In other words, crop rotation contributes to maintain a weed
technical and economical factors such as cultivation system (open community without the presence of herbicide resistant species,
air or greenhouse), date of sowing or transplanting, market (fresh with a balanced spectrum among the various biological weed
market, conservation industry, transformation industry, seeds in- groups and where there is not a similar (and so troublesome)
dustry) and knowledge (Tei and Pannacci, 2005). Sustainable pro- species similar to crop. All these factors contribute to the devel-
duction of minor crops is vital for both human health and national opment of less competitive and easy manageable weed commu-
economies as it contributes to agricultural productivity as well as a nities (Bonciarelli et al., 2016; Eyre et al., 2011; Benoit et al., 2003)
diverse and nutritional food supply, and food security (Lamichhane (Table 1). This goal can be achieved by:
et al., 2015). In this context, there is a need that policy makers,
researchers and stakeholders are together committed to reduce the alternating crops with different vegetation: leafy vegetables
use of herbicides in agriculture and develop robust non-chemical (e.g. lettuce, spinach, cabbage), root vegetables (e.g. carrot,
IWM tools. This could be especially true for minor crops which beetroot, chicory, etc.), tuber vegetables (e.g. potato), bulb veg-
may benefit from an increased availability of non-chemical weed etables (e.g. onion, garlic), fruit vegetables (e.g. nightshades and
management solutions. The main objective of this paper is to call cucurbits) and seeds (many species);
for intensified research efforts in the field of non-chemical weed cultivating cereals whenever possible (winter cereals, maize and
sorghum);
46 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
Table 1
Importance of cultural tactics and their potential future development through the research in weed management in minor crops (modified by Pannacci and Tei, 2015).
Action Details Effect Future development
Field selection avoid field with a high level of weed infestation, especially for low competitive crops high moderate
(e.g. carrot, onion, garlic, leek, etc.)
avoid field with a high level of perennial weed infestation, especially for perennial
crops (asparagus and medical plants)
Prevention of weed seed and clean mechanical tools, use of high pureness crop seeds, use of fertilizers and water moderate low
weed propagules spreading without weed seeds. in a long period
suppress weeds that require a difficult and expensive control before their scattering strategy
Crop rotation cultivate cereals (winter cereals, maize, sorghum) and meadows whenever possible high moderate
alternate crops with low (e.g. onion, garlic, leek, radish, lettuce) and high
competitiveness (e.g. solanaceae, cucurbitaceae);
Cover crops use cover crops as green manure (e.g. vetch, vetchþbarley, vetchþoat, faba moderate high
bean, etc.) or dead mulching by leaving on the soil surface crop residues or as living
mulching by temporaneous intercropping with main crop (rye-broccoli, rye-asparagus,
durum wheat-faba bean).
Seedbed preparation or prepare good seedbed (leads to a good crop establishment, an efficient mechanical and moderate moderate
transplant chemical weed control).
use stale seedbed high
Variety choice choose cultivars with a high competitiveness ability low high
Crop establishment choose an adequate date and mode of sowing or transplant (e.g. sowing depth, moderate low
inter-row distance, accurate steering)
choose transplanting rather than sowing whenever possible high
Irrigation and fertilization localised fertilization and irrigation are preferred whenever possible (e.g. strip moderate high
fertilization, fertigation, starter fertilization, sub-irrigation)
alternating crops with different crop-cycle; levels observed in component sole crops if intercrops use resources
avoiding continuous cropping systems; that are not exploitable by weeds or convert resources to harvest-
alternating crops with low (e.g. onion, garlic, leek, radish, let- able material more efficiently than sole crops (Liebman and Dyck,
tuce) and high competitiveness (e.g. potato, cucurbits, etc.); 1993). However, in some instances, the intercropping system by
alternating the crop having an easy and inexpensive weed itself would not be able to provide a satisfactory level of weed
management with the crop that requires a difficult and highly control unless the best component crops and other components of
cost weed management. IWM are selected along with the best compatible environmental
condition (Weerarathne et al., 2016). In this regard, hairy vetch
Mohler and Johnson (2009) showed as, unless mulches are used, mulches, in sole crop or in mixture with oat, combined with
“vines crops” (i.e. Cucurbitaceae, like squash, zucchini, watermelon, reduced mechanical weed control, could be a feasible strategy to
cucumber and melon), tend to become weedy because cultivation control weeds and to increase yields in sweet pepper (Isik et al.,
and hand weeding are essentially impossible after the stems have 2009) and tomato (Campiglia et al., 2010). Pouryousef et al.
run out of the row. Moreover, weeds have usually set seed by the (2015) found that fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) can
time these full-season crops have matured. Following such crops be used as living mulch in organic coriander (Coriandrum sativum
with a rapid succession of short-season crops like spinach and L.) production to reduce the biomass of weeds; however, the use of
lettuce that are harvested before weeds can set seed, will kill off fenugreek did not provide reliable weed control throughout the
many of the seeds produced in the “vines crop”, reducing weed season and so must be combined with additional weed manage-
problems in subsequent crops. Nevertheless, the applicability of ment options (e.g. stale seedbed, competitive cultivars) to achieve
crop rotation (especially in a greenhouse cropping system) is acceptable control. There are not studies on intercropping systems
difficult due to practical, economical and market reasons. useful for weed management in greenhouse crops; however, Demir
Many authors (Müller-Scha €rer and Potter, 1991; Ngouajio et al., and Polat (2011), in greenhouse condition, showed that LER (Land
2003) have studied the introduction of a cover crops in a crop Equivalent Ratio) value in broccoli:crispy salad intercropping was
rotation based system. Grasses, legume and/or crucifers can greater than 1. Yildirim and Guvenc (2005) obtained similar results
improve weed suppression, increase soil fertility and decrease soil when cauliflower was intercropped with lettuce, crispy salad,
erosion. Cover crops can also be used as green manure (Boydston radish, onion and dwarf bean or when eggplant was intercropped
and Hang, 1995) or dead mulching by leaving crop residue on with bean, cos lettuce and leaf lettuce under greenhouse conditions
place (Kruidhof et al., 2011; Tittarelli et al., 2014) or as living (Guvenc and Yildirim, 2005).
mulching by intercropping both main crop and cover crop In case of parasitic weeds infestation, trap crops could be used
(Brainard and Bellinder, 2004; Brainard et al., 2012). The achieve- (in a crop rotation system) to stimulate parasitic seeds germination
ment of cover crops is however strongly influenced by their man- and so allow an adequate weed control. This tactic is used for pea,
agement (species, date of sowing, date of incorporation or cutting, alfalfa, soybean, garlic, tobacco, sorghum or maize against infesta-
weed flora composition, water and nutrient supply, competition tion of Orobanche spp. (Rubiales et al., 2009; Covarelli et al., 2010).
with main crop) (Den Hollander et al., 2007). Furthermore, inter- The use of cover crops may involve allelopathic interactions be-
crop may also behave as weeds, while competing with main crop. tween minor crops and other crops or weeds (Jabran et al., 2015;
For these reasons, intercrops may demonstrate weed control ad- Pannacci et al., 2013, 2015a).
vantages over sole crops in two ways. First, greater crop yield and
less weed growth may be achieved if intercrops are more effective
2.3. Tillage and stale seedbed
than sole crops in usurping resources from weeds or suppressing
weed growth through allelopathy. Alternatively, intercrops may
Tillage greatly influences soil seedbank and weed emergence.
provide yield advantages without suppressing weed growth below
Crucial aspects of weed seeds are: dormancy, longevity, size and
seedling emergence ability (Batlla and Benech-Arnold, 2007). or 20 mm) in order to avoid germination of new flush of weed
Tillage affects the vertical weed seed distribution in a soil profile, seeds. Stale seedbed was effective in integrated weed management
and this distribution further affects weed seed germination by and organic systems on carrot (Peruzzi et al., 2005; Tei et al.,
influencing the soil environment surrounding the seeds (Chauhan 2002a), onion (Tei et al., 1999), cabbage (Tei et al., 2005), spinach
and Johnson, 2009). Weed seeds present at different depths can (Peruzzi et al., 2006; Tei et al., 2002a), lettuce (Tei et al., 2007) and
be affected by differential moisture, temperature fluctuation, light peppers (Pannacci et al., 2015c).
availability, and predator activity (Singh et al., 2015). Systems with
less soil disturbance, such as minimum tillage (MT) and/or zero 2.4. Varieties selection
tillage (ZT), concentrate most of the weed seeds on or near the soil
surface; whereas, conventional tillage (CT) systems, basically based Crop varieties are chosen because of their productivity, quality
on ploughing, mix weed seeds more or less uniformly in the tilled and resistance ability to biotic and abiotic stress. Other features
soil depth (Fig. 1) (Chauhan and Johnson, 2009). Tillage, depending such as root development, faster initial growth, wide leaf area and
on the type and frequency, may stimulate the germination of some allelopathic action should be introduced into new varieties in order
weed seeds by exposing buried seeds to light, aerating soil, and to better compete against weeds. However, though the develop-
increasing soil temperature and seed-soil moisture contact ment of competitive cultivars in minor crops would provide a safe
(Chauhan et al., 2006). In this context, ZT or MT systems may reduce and environmentally benign tool for weed management, it has not
the emergence of seedlings of some weed species, as seeds at the been addressed seriously by plant breeders, as already observed in
soil surface are prone to rapid desiccation and predation (Graziani other crops (Mahajan and Chauhan, 2013). Only few studies can be
et al., 2008b; Singh et al., 2015); however, weed species with small found where breeders have been recently developing new varieties
seed, scarcely dormant seed with a low longevity can rapidly in- taking into account these features (Paolini et al., 2006; Radicetti
crease if not well controlled (Graziani et al., 2007). In this latter et al., 2012). In particular, Radicetti et al. (2012) found that in the
case, a subsequent tillage based on ploughing is recommended to rainfed Mediterranean environment of central Italy, combining
bury surface seeds deeper in the soil, increasing their mortality and highly yielding competitive chickpea genotypes with 2 inter-row
reducing seedling emergence and seed bank (Pannacci et al., hoeings, applied at 25 and 50 days after emergence, is a feasible
2015b). On the other hand, ploughing, burying seeds deeper in strategy in order to prevent consistent chickpea seed yield reduc-
the soil, can preserve weed species with seeds characterized by tion caused by the weeds.
high longevity and secondary dormancy (Singh et al., 2015; The role of competitive cultivars can be exploited further with
Graziani et al., 2007). agronomic manipulations such as altered plant spatial pattern and
A good seedbed preparation is important for: 1) a better crop sowing time, and narrow crop rows, which might be helpful in
establishment (sowing and/or transplant); 2) a fast canopy closure; providing supplemental weed control when herbicides should be
3) an effective mechanical weed control. reduced or can not be used as in organic farming (Mahajan and
An earlier seedbed preparation combined with irrigation Chauhan, 2011). Using competitive cultivars to suppress weeds
(whenever necessary) stimulates seed germination of certain weed might substantially reduce selection pressure, herbicide use, and
species (2e3 weeks before crop emergence or transplant) among labour costs and permit weeds to be controlled easier inside to a
the first 40e60 mm soil layer (Melander et al., 2005; Rasmussen non-chemical weed management system. For these reasons, it
et al., 2011). Emerged weeds are than eliminated by slight har- could be suggested that, the minor crops varieties should be
rowing (flex-tine harrow) or flaming. selected according the plant traits that are associated with weed
Harrowing and sowing should be carried out very shallowly (10 competitiveness, like: height together with early canopy cover;
Fig. 1. a) Number of active weed seeds in a seedbank after 13 years of continuous winter wheat cultivation on 0e0.45 m of soil layer managed with ploughing (PL, 0.45 m depth)
and minimum tillage (MT, 0.15 m depth); b) influence of different cultivation depth on vertical weed seeds distribution in the soil layer (Graziani et al., 2007).
high tiller density; droopy leaves; high biomass accumulation at 3. Mechanical weed control methods
the early crop stage; high leaf area index and high specific leaf area
during vegetative growth, rapid canopy ground cover and early Over the last 15 years, organic farming has stimulated the
vigour; as observed in other crops (Mahajan and Chauhan, 2013). development of new mechanical weed control methods (Bond and
However, it's well to point out that the use of weed-competitive Grundy, 2001; Pannacci and Tei, 2014; Van der Weide et al., 2008).
cultivars is unlikely to be feasible as a stand-alone technology but Nowadays, mechanical weed control methods are effective, fast
rather it may be a valuable component of integrated measures and do not leave chemical residues on crop plants (Pannacci and
(Chauhan, 2012). Tei, 2014). For these reasons, mechanical weed control methods
are the main direct system to suppress weeds in organic and low-
2.5. Crop establishment input cropping systems. In conventional cropping systems how-
ever, mechanical weed control methods (used in a IWMS context)
Crop's seeds with a high vigour, a well-prepared seedbed and an could also be used to reduce dependence on herbicides, prevent the
adequate sowing depth are crucial in order to have a regular selection of herbicide-resistant species and maintain a balanced
emergence of plants and a well-established crop that result in a and easily manageable weed community (Berti et al., 2001).
high competitiveness of crop against weeds. Nevertheless, mechanical weed control has some drawbacks: 1)
Transplanted crops are preferred to sown crops because of their it requires time and high costs that could have been spent on other
initial competitive capacity against to weeds. Furthermore, a crop operations; 2) climatic and soil condition can greatly influence
transplanted crop has a shorter critical period of competition and timing and effectiveness 3) scarce effectiveness on intra-row
mechanical or chemical weed control are easily carried out. An weeds; 4) skilled operators are required for better adjusting and
increased crop density is successfully used to reduce the space driving mechanical weed tools; 5) a high initial price and expensive
between crop rows and so it promotes crop competitiveness (Norris service (Van der Schans et al., 2006).
et al., 2001; Uludag et al., 2003). Paired rows are also used in crops Mechanical weed tools can be classified based on their mode of
as pepper, tomato and cabbage to promote crop competitiveness. action towards crop row: 1) Inter-row cultivators; 2) Intra-row
Transplant is however sometimes limited (in an integrated weed cultivators.
management system) because of the following reasons: 1) high cost
of transplanted crop plants (e.g. tomato, pepper); 2) negative effect 3.1. Inter-row cultivators
of high crop density on marketable yield (e.g. cabbage and lettuce);
3) a need to have an adequate inter-row space to allow mechanical In row crops (e.g. maize), mechanical weed control can be se-
weed control (e.g. onion, carrot, fennel and coriander) (Bastiaans lective (regarding to crop plants) by using tools that only till be-
et al., 2008). In crops as winter cereals (where only flex-tine har- tween the inter-row space. Cultivation has a strong action and
row can be used) a larger inter-row space could be adopted in order weed suppression is carried out by uprooting, cutting, shredding,
to allow the use of other mechanical tools (e.g. traditional hoe or tearing, burying (Table 3).
precision hoe) (Pannacci et al., 2016).
3.1.1. Hoe
2.6. Irrigation and fertilization Hoes that are used for mechanical weed control can be classified
based on their working tools: traditional hoe; rotary hoe; rotary
It is difficult to understand the effects of irrigation and fertil- tilling cultivators (Table 3).
ization in integrated weed management systems. The disturbance Traditional hoe is pulled by tractor and it has a wide range of
of irrigation and fertilization on competition between crop plants working tools (blade, sweep, duckfoot, etc.) mounted on a rigid or
and weed community is scarcely predictable (Santos et al., 2004a; flexible shank. Generally, the use of rigid shanks is advisable in clay
Ugen et al., 2002). In general, weeds have more aggressive soils because they better crumble soil crust allowing a greatly weed
nutrient uptake compared to crops, therefore altering timing control while in sandy soils flexible shanks are more effective.
placement, and source in order to preferentially provide the crop Weed control is mainly achieved by cutting, uprooting and burying
with better access to nutrients is desirable (Nichols et al., 2015). In of small weed plants. Weeding action, however, depends on
IWMS, local fertilization promotes crop growth during initial stage working tool, weed species and weed growth stage (Table 3).
(e.g. starter fertilizer) and excludes weeds to take advantage from In rotary hoe, more sophisticated grouped working tools (each
nutrient and water (fertirrigation, strip fertilization, drip irrigation) operating in inter-row space) such as discs and spike wheels,
(Santos et al., 2004b). In irrigated environments, spatial and tem- permit a weed control action reached by uprooting and burying.
poral variation of soil moisture offers opportunities for weed con- Working tool rotation is allowed by tractor pulling (e.g. split-hoe)
trol. When the top layer of soil is dry, planting large-seeded crops or by tractor PTO (rotary tilling cultivators having multiple heads).
into deep soil moisture can provide crops with an initial advantage Both traditional and rotary hoe allow a late mechanical weed
over weeds (Nichols et al., 2015). A similar strategy could be also control when crop plants are well developed (0.4e0.5 m high and
favourably adopted in arid conditions on transplanted or seeded before crop canopy closure). Furthermore, they have high working
minor crops managed by subirrigation. Indeed, it was noted that speed (from 4 to 8 km h1 depending on the hoe) that allows a
seed production of several weeds (i.e. Galium aparine L., Avena fatua rapid cultivation and is low time-consuming (depending on hoe
L., Avena sterilis L., Echinochloa crus-galli L., Sinapis arvensis L. and width). These hoes are generally used in the field crops with wide
Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr.) were reduced by competition and rows (from 0.30 m to 0.75 m) (i.e. maize, sunflower, soyabean, etc.);
moisture stress, and the seeds produced by weeds grown in drier whereas are not adapted to work in the greenhouse crops due to
soil were small and had negligible dormancy. Hence, in dry con- the high width of machineries. However, a lot of minor crops, like
ditions, the competitiveness of weeds and their potential to pro- some vegetables (i.e. cabbages, artichoke), seed crops, herbs and
duce persistent seeds may be reduced (Efthimiadou et al., 2009). plants for medicinal use and spices can be managed using hoes for
Finally, another utilization of water is to apply irrigation in false weed control. Hoe weeding effectiveness is linked to soil properties
seedbed technique in order to germinate weeds, terminate them (such as moisture and texture), weather conditions after cultivation
using flaming or spring-tine arrowing and then sow or transplant and working tool features (size, shape and working depth); rainy
the crop into the clean seed bed (Chauhan et al., 2012). conditions after soil cultivation can decrease weeding effectiveness
Table 2
Effects of mechanical weed control on weed ground cover, weed density and weed dry matter in transplanted onion for seed production in a 2 years experiment (modified from
Pannacci et al., 2008).
Treatments 2006 2007
Weed ground cover (%) Weed density (n. m2) Weed density (n. m2) Weed dry matter (g m2)
Hoeing 11.4a 16.3b 34.3b 49.3bc

Hoeing þ ridging 8.1a 5.3a 16.5a 12.0a
Split-hoeing 7.7a 11.5ab 27.0ab 41.4ab
Finger-weeding 12.4a 5.3a 59.3b 95.3bc
Split-hoeing þ F. weeding 4.6a 6.3a 26.0ab 36.4ab
Untreated control 57.6b 46.3c 69.3b 145.6c
In each column, values followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to the Fisher's protected LSD test (P ¼ 0.05).
Table 3
Features of inter-row mechanical weed tools.
Inter-row Traditional hoe (with tine cultivators) Rotary hoe Rotary tilling cultivators Horizontal brush Split-hoe
mechanical (with multiple heads) weeder
weed control
tools
Weeding action e uprooting, cutting and burying e uprooting and burying e uprooting, lacerating e uprooting and drying e cutting, uprooting
and burying weeds on the soil and drying weeds on
surface the soil surface
Working depth e 30e50 mm e 40e50 mm e 40e60 mm e 10e30 mm e 10e40 mm
Soil texture e both clay (with rigid shanks) and e better in loose soils e both clay and sandy e better in loose, flat e both clay and sandy
sandy (flexible shanks) soils but not stony soils and not compacted but not stony soils
soils
Inter-row e from 0.20-0.25 m to 0.50 m e from 0.40 m to 0.50e0.75 m e from 0.30 m to 0.40 e from 0.20-0.25 m to e from 0.20-0.25 m to
distance e0.50 m 0.40 m 0.40 m
Optimum weed e from 4 to 6 true leaves stage e from cotyledon to 4 true-leaves e from cotyledonal-2 e from cotyledon to 4 e from cotyledon to 6
growth stage stage true-leaves stage to true-leaves stage e8 true-leaves stage
e low effectivness on grass and well developed weeds e also weeds very close e also weeds very close
perennial weed species to crop row to crop row
Optimum crop e from cotyledon stage (with e from cotyledon stage (with e from 2 true-leaves e from cotyledon stage e from cotyledon stage
growth stage shanks) or from 4 true-leaves shanks) or from 4 true-leaves stage until the treat- until the treatment is until the treatment is
stage until the treatment is carried stage until the treatment is carried ment is carried out carried out without carried out without
out without crop injury out without crop injury without crop injury crop injury crop injury
Suitable crops e in all row crops e in all row crops e in all row crops e in all row crops e in all row crops
Work capacity e 0.5 (1.5 m) e 1.5 (3 m) e 0.3 (1.5 m) e 0.4 (1.5 m) e 0.4 (1.5 m)
(ha h1) with
a fixed
working
width
Additional e shallow treatments near to crop e careful setting is required e avoid in case of e it causes soil e allow a rapid weed
information row are preferred perennial weeds pulverization control
e recommended only in
case of well-
developed weeds
of 30e40% (Lichtenhahn et al., 2005). However, because of their

strong action in the soil, these hoes are able to control weeds from
early stages (2e4 true leaves stage) to late stages (well-developed
weeds); attention to avoid the use of the rotary tilling cultivators in
case of perennial weeds (Table 3). The main disadvantage of hoeing
is the low effectiveness on intra-row weeds, due to the implements
that are set to work not very close to the row, in order to avoid crop
damage, working quickly and in depth (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996;
Ascard and Fogelberg, 2002). Whenever possible, hoeing should be
combined with ridging in order to increase weed control effec-
tiveness on crop row. This fact was highlighted on maize, sunflower
and soybean (Pannacci and Tei, 2014) and on minor crops such as
transplanted onion for seed production (Table 2 and Fig. 2)
(Pannacci et al., 2008).
Precision hoe was created by the University of Pisa in order to
works closer to crop plants and with a decreased inter-row crop
distance (0.20e0.25 m). This tool has successfully replaced tradi-
tional hoe in minor crops as carrot, radish, fennel, onion and
spinach in organic cropping system and it may be used also in
Fig. 2. Transplanted onion for seed production (inter-row distance of 0.5 m) after
greenhouse crops (Peruzzi et al., 2005). Precision hoe has a wide
hoeing and ridging (photo by Pannacci Euro).
range of working tools such as goosefoot, L-shaped tines, discs and 3.2. Intra-row cultivators
flexible teeth.
Inter-row hoeing can finally be used when chemical weed Many authors have pointed out that the main problem in weed
control is carried out on crop row. A combined use of inter-row control is caused by intra-row weeds (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996;
hoeing and herbicides (along crop row) can lead to a decreased Ascard and Fogelberg, 2002; Melander et al., 2015; Melander and
use of chemical compounds up to 65% (Pannacci and Tei, 2014). Rasmussen, 2001; Pannacci and Tei, 2014; Peruzzi et al., 2005).
Over the last years several intra-row mechanical weed tools have
been developed with a high selectivity regarding to crop plants
3.1.2. Brush-weeder
(Table 4). These tools, combined with inter-row weed methods can
The working tool of rotary brush weeder is a brush on poly-
increase the effectiveness of mechanical weed control.
propylene mounted on a vertical or horizontal axis and powered by
tractor PTO; weeding action is due to tearing and uprooting
3.2.1. Finger-weeder
(Table 3).
Finger-weeder (Kress Umweltschonende Landtechnik, Germany
Horizontal brush weeder eliminates weeds on inter-row space
available on line: http://www.kress-landtechnik.de/wEnglisch/
while vertical brush weeder controls weeds on intra-row space. In
produkte/gemuesebau/hacktechnik/fingerhacke_start.shtml?
horizontal brush weeder, brushes can be adjusted on horizontal
navid¼12) (Fig. 5) works both in inter-row crop space and intra-
axis to fit with inter-row space and crop plants are protected by
row crop line to control weeds, especially in horticultural and
shields. Soil is cultivated shallowly to avoid the emergence of new
greenhouse crops with inter-row spacing from 0.25-0.30 m to
flush of weeds. Brush weeders are often used in horticultural crops
0.40e0.50 m (i.e., tomato, celery, onion, lettuce, chicory, leak,
and greenhouse crops (i.e. tomato, lettuce, chicory, carrot, spinach,
spinach, fennel, French bean, common bean, carrot, radish, etc.)
etc.) with inter-row distance from 0.20-0.25 m to 0.40 m (Tei et al.,
(Table 4). Cultivation on inter-row crop space is carried out by
2003; Tei and Pannacci, 2005: Turner et al., 2007) and especially
special-flat share type “Holland” (340 mm wide, http://www.kress-
against weeds at early growth stage (from cotyledon to 4 true-
landtechnik.de/wEnglisch/produkte/gemuesebau/hacktechnik/
leaves stage) (Table 3) (Fogelberg and Dock Gustavsson, 1999).
hackwerkzeug/hackwerkzeuge_start.shtml?navid¼31). Intra-row
The negative aspects are: 1) low effectiveness with developed
weeding is achieved by rubber-finger weeders consisting of two
weeds; 2) low operation capability (from 0.3 to 0.5 ha h1); 3) fast
pairs of ground-driven wheels equipped with rubber fingers stir-
brush decay; 4) effectiveness is strictly dependent on soil moisture.
ring the soil surface. The wheels meet in the crop row, pulling out
small weeds during the process (Fig. 5). Working depth varies from
3.1.3. Split-hoe 10 to 30 mm (Table 4). Finger weeder needs very accurate steering
This tool has been recently developed in Germany (Asperg to work as close as possible in the crop rows and its use is rec-
Gartnereibedarf, Germany) to eliminate weeds in inter-row space ommended when crop plants are well-rooted (from 4 true-leaves);
in herbaceous, horticultural crops and greenhouse crops (Table 3). therefore, the tool can cultivate maximum 6 crop rows simulta-
Split-hoe has the advantages of hoe, rotary tilling cultivator and neously and its working speed varies from 4 to 5 km h1 (Table 4).
brush weeder without having their disadvantages. In fact, the Experiments on horticultural crops have shown a low effec-
effectiveness of hoe, rotary tilling cultivator and brush weeder is tiveness against weeds over the stage of 2e4 true-leaves, in clay
strictly related to soil moisture and weed specie while split-hoe is soils and a low selectivity of crop plants (Ascard and Bellinder,
less dependent on these parameters (Table 3). For this reason, split- 1996; Kurstjens and Bleeker, 2000). Finger weeding on sown on-
hoe has a wide range of application and a stronger and unselective ion (treated when crop was at cotyledonal stage) had an effec-
action among small, developed, and perennial weeds (Pannacci and tiveness of 50% (with a 182 plants m2 and 27 plants m2 density of
Tei, 2014). Portulaca oleracea L. and A. retroflexus, respectively) against weeds
Split-hoe eliminates weeds on inter-row space ranged from 0.4 and caused a decreased crop density of 25% (Pannacci et al., 2007,
to 0.5 to 0.2e0.25 m. Crop plants are protected by a shield and 2008). The same field conditions were used in a study on
therefore an uncultivated soil band of 80 mm c.a. among crop row is spinach: crop was sown at 0.25 m of inter-row space and finger
left (Fig. 3a). weeder was used when crop was at 4e6 true-leaves stage; finger
As a consequence of wide rigid hoes, weeding action is com- weeding decreased weed density of 68% (Tei et al., 2002b). In
bined with gangs of spike-wheels mounted on a horizontal axis organic transplanted tomato, with inter-row space of 1 m, finger
powerd by PTO of the tractor (Fig. 3b). Rigid hoes provide cutting weeder can be used from the tomato growth stage of 2e3 leaves on
and pulling up weed plants while spike-wheels uproote and main shoot unfolded to 8e9 leaves, obtaining a good effectiveness
separate them from soil particles. Uprooted weed plants are then in controlling dicotyledonous intra-row weeds and a good selec-
rapidly dried on the soil surface (Fig. 4). tivity toward crop plants. Against a high infestation rate of
Split-hoe has shown an effectiveness from 65% up to 90%, A. retroflexus, P. oleracea, C. album and E. crus-galli, finger weeder
comparing to untreated control, against a weed flora composed by showed a weeding action lower than 65% because it was unable to
Amaranthus retroflexus L., Solanum nigrum L., Chenopodium album L., control weeds over 2e4 true-leaves stage (especially grass species)
and Echinochloa-crus-galli L. (Pannacci and Covarelli, 2005). On in clay soil. Finger weeder combined with a split-hoe can be suc-
onion seed production (inter-row space of 0.5 m) (Table 2) and cessfully used to increase weeding action in low weed density (and
sown spinach (inter-crop distance of 0.25 m) split-hoe reduced when dicotyledonous weed species are dominant) and in loose soil
weed number of 70% and 80%, respectively (compared to unculti- conditions (Table 4) (Pannacci et al., 2008; Pannacci and Covarelli,
vated crop) (Pannacci et al., 2008; Tei et al., 2002b). These facts 2005; Pannacci and Tei, 2014).
underlined that split-hoe could be used as mechanical weed con-
trol tactic in transplanted or sown minor crops (e.g. lettuce, chicory, 3.2.2. Torsion weeder
cabbage, carrot, onion, chickpea, lentil, bean, etc.) when the me- Torsion weeder is a very simple tool formed by pairs of spring
chanical treatment is repeated several times and inter-row space is tines (having a diameter of 90 mm) connected to a rigid frame.
among 0.20 and 0.25 m. Crop plants must be smaller than the Spring tine can be divided in two parts: the first one is a verical axis
shields, i.e. crop growth stage and vegetation features are crucial in of 0.3e0.4 m pointed to the soil surface; the second is a horizontal,
order to avoid crop injury (Fig. 3a). angled part pointed to crop plant. Torsion weeder is generally
Fig. 3. a) Split-hoe on spinach (inter-row of 0.25 m); b) Spike-wheels mounted on a horizontal axis (photo by Pannacci Euro).
Fig. 4. (a) Dicotyledonous and (b) monocotyledonous weeds on the soil surface after a mechanical treatment carried out by a split-hoe on soybean (inter-row space of 0.5 m) (photo
by Pannacci Euro).
Table 4
Features of intra-row mechanical weed tools.
Intra-row mechanical weed Finger-weeder Torsion-weeder Flex-tines harrow

control tools
Weed action uprooting and burying uprooting and burying uprooting and burying
Working depth 10e30 mm 10e30 mm 10e30 mm
Soil texture better in loose and not compacted soils better in loose and not compacted better in loose and not compacted soils
soils
Inter-row distance from 0.25-0.30 m to 0.40e0.50 m from 0.20-0.25 m to 0.75 m
Optimum weed growth stage from cotyledon to 2e4 true-leaves stage from cotyledon to 2 true-leaves stage from cotyledon to 2e4 true-leaves stage
Optimum crop growth stage when crop plants are well-rooted (from 4 when crop plants are well-rooted when crop plants are well-rooted (from
true- leaves) (from 4 true-leaves) 4 true-leaves)
Suitable crops common bean, cabbage, tomato, leak, common bean, cabbage, tomato, leak, common bean, carrot, onion, pea, lentil,
spinach, lettuce, carrot, fennel celery, lettuce, fennel chickpea, minor cereal
1
Work capacity (ha h ) with a 0.5 (1.5 m) 0.5 (1.5 m) 2.5 (6 m)
fixed working width
Additional information high usage of rubber fingers combined with precision hoe
combined with split-hoe and hoe
mounted on more sophisticated machine as precision hoe (Table 4). that improves soil tilling and complete the action of torsion weeder
Precision hoe is formed by various tools (e.g. blade, hoe, sweep) by working on inter-row space (Peruzzi et al., 2005). Torsion
Fig. 5. a) Finger weeder: special-flat share type "Holland" and discs equipped with rubber fingers; b) finger weeder in action on soybean (photo by Pannacci Euro).
weeder is used mainly in horticultural crops and greenhouse crops only available mechanical weed control tool (Pannacci et al., 2016).
(i.e. common bean, cabbage, tomato, leak, celery, lettuce, fennel) Over the last years many experiments have shown that it is possible
where its effectiveness has been proved. Onion yield production to use flex-tine harrow in crops as maize, sunflower, common bean,
was similar both when using torsion weeder and using chemical carrot, onion, pea, lentil, chickpea, etc (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996;
weed control (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996). In leek, torsion weeder Pannacci and Tei, 2014; Raffaelli et al., 2002a, 2002b). (Table 4). In
had a weeding action of 80% (Kurstjens and Bleeker, 2000). order to minimize crop damage, flex-tine harrow should be used
Torsion weeder showed good results in experiments on maize when crop plants are well-rooted (after 4-true-leaves crop growth
and sugar beet, especially against small weeds; the optimum weed stage) (Lichtenhahn et al., 2005) (Table 4). For this reason, crops as
growth stage is from cotyledon to 2 true-leaves stage (Table 4). Crop pea, lentil, bean and chickpea, sowed at narrow row (0.15e0.20 m),
selectivity is influenced by crop growth stage and a good tool can be favourably treated reducing the risk to uproot or to damage
setting (Kurstjens and Bleeker, 2000; Peruzzi et al., 2006; Raffaelli crop plants, thanks to their sowing depth and strong roots. Flex-
et al., 2005. In particular, in order to minimize crop damage, tor- tine harrow is more effective against small broadleaves weeds
sion weeder should be used when crop plants are well-rooted (after (cotyledon stage), while is less effective to control grass species and
2-4-true-leaves crop growth stage), setting the spring tines not too ineffective on perennial weeds (Melander et al., 2012).
close to the crop plants (Table 4). Flex-tine harrow can also be used in: 1) full-field cultivation
before sowing or transplanting; 2) early seedbad preparation; 3)
3.2.3. Flex-tine harrow pre-emergence cultivation (in crop with a low growth rate); 4)
This tool is formed by flexible tines (from 6 to 8 mm of diameter) situation where stale seedbad was not adopted.
mounted on modular rigid frames. Flex-tine harrow allows a full- In a study on onion for seed production, a treatment with flex-
field cultivation (Fig. 6) and for this reason is normally used in tine harrow was carried out when the crop had a leaf 10e20 mm
field crops, whereas is not favourably applied in greenhouse crops. long and weeds were at 2 true-leaves stage. A high density of
Working depth and aggressiveness can be increased by modifying P. oleracea (182 plants m2) and A. retroflexus (27 plants m2) was
the tine tension so that they are angled forward. Flex-tine harrow established. Flex-tine harrow eliminated just 25% of weeds and
has a wide range of applicability. In organic winter cereals it is the caused a decreased crop density of 50% (Pannacci et al., 2007, 2008).
Fig. 6. a) Flex-tines harrow operating on sunflower. b) particularity of flexible tines (photo by Pannacci Euro).
Experiments in central Italy were conducted on weed community Nowadays these methods are nevertheless unusable and
composed by A. retroflexus, P. oleracea, C. album, P. persicaria, D. uneconomical.
sanguinalis and E. crus-galli. Weed action of flex-tine harrow was
lower than 50% due to poor effectiveness on developed weeds
4.1. Mulching
(more than 2 true-leaves stage). In particular, weeding action was
inadequate toward P. persicaria, D. sanguinalis and E. crus-galli
Organic mulching (e.g. cereal straw, leaves, pine needles, mash
(Pannacci and Tei, 2014). A double treatment with flex-tine harrow
cortex) sometimes improves physical, chemical and biological soil
did not significantly increase weed control regarding to single
properties (Grassbaugh et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009). The effec-
cultivation (Pannacci and Tei, 2014). Another experiment under-
tivness of an organic mulch it depends on its thickness (Teasdale
lined the importance of tine setting in order to increase weeding
and Mohler, 2000). The cost of an organic mulch is also impor-
effectiveness and crop selectivity (Raffaelli et al., 2005).
tant and depends on its origin (Runham and Town, 1995). Organic
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the features of inter and intra-row
mulch is mainly used in organic cropping systems.
mechanical weed control tools.
Polyethylene mulch is widely used in horticultural crops (e.g.
The effectiveness of mechanical weed tools is strongly influ-
strawberry, tomato, eggplant, muskmelon, watermelon, etc.)
enced by soil texture, soil moisture, weed species, weed growth
because its effectivness in weeding control. This method however
stage (Fogelberg and Dock Gustavsson, 1999) and their resistance to
leads to a small soil temperature increases compared to some
uprooting (Fogelberg and Dock Gustavsson, 1998). The use of me-
transparent mulch.
chanical weed tools should be previously tested under different
Over the last years photo-selective films (e.g. white-black,
soil, climatic and cropping conditions (Rasmussen, 1996). New
brown, red-brown, silver-brown, silver-black, yellow-brown)
applications of mechanical weed control methods are having an
were revised in order to reduce their initial price. Photo-selective
increase interest due to a higher demand of organic food or food
films combined the effect of transparent and black films. Further-
produced with a reduced use of chemical compounds (integrated
more, it has also a repulsive effect on aphid populations (Brown and
cropping system).
Brown, 1992).
Over the last years, a cooperation among precision farming,
Other thermoplastic films made by corn starch are used because
researchers and industry has developed modern mechanical weed
of their durable mulching effect (2e4 months) that protects crop
control tools equipped with sensors or cameras in order to auto-
plants against weeds along the sensitive crop growing period.
mate weed control (Slaughter et al., 2008).
Weeding action and decomposition of thermoplastic films are
Some machines with an automated weed control system are
mainly influeced by their thickness and composition.
nowadays available on European market: Robovator (www.
Non-plastic matherial are also interesting. Paper mulches can be
visionweeding.com), Robocrop (www.garford.com) and Steketee
well-mixed with soil and greatly eliminated weed plants in
IC (www.steketee.com) (Melander et al., 2015). These tools are
watermelon (Sanchez et al., 2008), common bean and tomato
efficient with a high intra-row and inter-row space among crop
(Radics and Bogna r, 2004) and in processing tomato infested with
plants (low crop density). Transplanted crops are efficiently treated
Cyperus rotundus L. (Cirujeda et al., 2012). Mulching is generally
because there is a great difference, in terms of growth, among crop
more effective against annual weeds rather than perennial weeds
and weed plants. Up to now, there are only few studies on weeding
(e.g. Cyperus spp., Elymus repens (L.) Gould., Digitaria sanguinalis (L.)
effectiveness available. Robocrop has shown a weeding control
Scop., Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. e Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.)
ranged from 62% to 87% in a 240 mm zone radious crop plants in
because they greatly perforate plastic films (Bond and Grundy,
transplanted cabbage (Tillett et al., 2008). Fennimore et al. (2014)
2001; Ferrero and Casini, 2001).
reached a better intra-row weed control by using Robocrop
rather than traditional hoe on transplanted celery, lettuce and
radicchio. Melander et al. (2015) did not notice any significant 4.2. Solarization
difference in intra-row weed control by using Robovator or other
tools (flex-tine harrow, finger weeder and torsion weeder) on In this method wet soil is covered by a trasparent plastic film
transplanted onion and cabbage. (polyethylene 0.05 mm thick) or by a mulch and it is warmed by
solar radiation. Mulch or plastic film must stay on the soil surface
3.2.4. Manual weeding for 4e12 weeks and a high temperature is needed. This system is
Despite an accurate weed management, the adoption of stale used to control nematodes and fungal diseases and is effective in
seedbad, the use of pre-emergence and/or post-emergence controlling weed plants despite is mainly used to control nema-
flaming, a repeated inter and intra-row cultivation, manual weed- todes and fungal diseases (Gill et al., 2009). Solarization permits to
ing is often required in organic cropping systems (Chatizwa, 1997). maintain a high soil temperature (>40 C) that kills weed seeds or
Hand labour in organic row crops is high: 300 h ha1 in onion and weedseedlings (Chase et al., 1999). In some species if lethal tem-
500 h ha1 in carrot (Tei et al., 1999, 2002b); 175 h ha1 for direct- perature is not reached, dormancy can be broken allowing an
seeded onions, 24 h ha1 for transplanted lettuce and 162 h ha1 for emergence of a new flush of weed seedlings; this fact can occour
sown fennel (Van der Weide et al., 2008); 120e300 h ha1 for along the first soil layer (Vidotto et al., 2013).
celery, 100e200 h ha1 for spinach and 60e100 h ha1 for French Weed species are differently sensitive to solarization: annual
beans (the lower limit in open-field cultivation and the upper limit weeds are sensitive but not Avena fatua and P. oleracea that are
in tunnel cultivation) (Lichtenhahn et al., 2005). slightly tolerant and Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. that is relatively
tolerant; perennial weeds (Convolvulus arvensis L., Cyperus spp.
4. Physical weed control methods C. dactylon, S. halepense and Equisetum spp.) can be relatively sen-
sitive or tolerant.
Physical weed control methods used in minor crops are: Although solarization was found to be effective both in field and
mulching, solarization, flaming and steaming (Melander et al., glasshouse (Campiglia et al., 1998, 2000; Candido et al., 2011), its
2005; Melander and Jørgensen, 2005; Peruzzi et al., 2009). Re- application is normally restricted to vegetable and minor crops (e.g.
searchers are recently studying other thermal weed control tomato, radish, lettuce, colewort, cucumber, pepper, fennel, cauli-
methods (freezing, microwaves, laser, electirc and gamma ray). flower) under greenhouse cultivation (Lombardo et al., 2012).
4.3. Flaming the use of natural products, extracts, and natural biological agents
such as fungi and bacteria to attack weeds is becoming an effective
Flaming is the most used thermal weed method (Ascard et al., tool, that need to be more investigated in order to increase the
2007; Ferrero and Casini, 2001). The effectiveness of flaming de- possibilities to control weeds also in minor and greenhouse crops,
pends on weed growth stage and weed morphology. Dicotyle- cultivated in integrated and organic horticulture (Cai and Gu, 2016).
donous and young weed plants are more sensitive compared to Recent reviews on the existing products on the market and per-
developed plants and grass species respectively. In dicotyledonous spectives on the integration of bioherbicides in cropping systems
plants in fact, meristems are not protected and so they are exposed for integrated weed management were given by Cordeau et al.
to the thermal action of weeding (Ascard, 1995). (2016), Cai and Gu (2016) and Hershenhorn et al. (2016). In
Flaming tools powered by liquid petroleum gas (LPG) can be particular, the fungus Alternaria destruens L. Simmons, strain 059, is
used: 1) pre-sowing (or pre-transplant) combined with stale the active principle of Smoulder®, a bioherbicide used against the
seedbed (Balsari et al., 1994); 2) pre-emergence when weeds Cuscuta genus. It controls several species of dodders that infest
emerge before crop plants because crop seeds are sown deeply different major and minor crops such as alfalfa, carrot, cranberry,
rather than weed seeds (this tactic is used in low germination crop sweet pepper, tomato, eggplant, cornflower, and ornamental
as carrot, onion, persley, celery, leek and spinach) (Melander and ligneous plants. This bioherbicide was produced and registered by
Rasmussen, 2001; Peruzzi et al., 2005, 2006); 3) post-emergence Loveland Products Inc., Greely CO, and Sylvan Bio Inc., Kittanning,
with or without protective shield according to crop tolerance to PA, and authorized by the EPA in 2005 (Cordeau et al., 2016). In
high temperature (e.g. onion, garlic, cabbage, artichoke, spinach, greenhouse and field tomato studies, applying the fungus Myr-
sweet corn) (Raffaelli et al., 2004; Sivesind et al., 2012; Tei et al., othecium verrucaria as a bioherbicide did not affect tomato growth
2002b). throughout the growing season but killed 90%e95% of purslane
In the greenhouse, flaming with propane or butane is a viable species and 85%e95% of spurge species, and the yield was the same
option to kill small emerged weeds under benches and along as with conventional herbicide application (Boyette et al., 2007).
walkways if landscape fabric is not used. It is also recommended Brassicaceae seed meals were used to increase soil inorganic ni-
that weeds be small and that ventilation is operational with trogen and the yields of carrot, which had high efficacy in con-
adequate air flow when flaming is performed. However, the high trolling weeds in organic production (Snyder et al., 2009). In
cost of labour, fuel and equipment together to the high dimension particular, Mustard Seed Meal (MSM) is a byproduct of the com-
of the machineries, seems to suggest the use of flaming in the field mercial mustard oil pressing process that contains glucosinolates
crops with wide rows; limiting the applications in the greenhouse that can be enzymatically hydrolyzed to isothiocyanates, thiocya-
crops to the pre-sowing (or pre-transplant) treatments combined nate, nitriles, and other compounds; these biologically active
with stale seedbed, using small machines or portable flame weeder. compounds are toxic to many weeds (Cai and Gu, 2016). In a
greenhouse study, mustard seed meal significantly decreased
4.4. Steaming redroot pigweed emergence and slightly reduced total yield of
onion, indicating MSM has potential to be used as a weed sup-
Steam can be used to devitalize weed seeds and propagules. pressive amendment in an organic onion production system
Melander and Jørgensen (2005) demonstrated steaming (at least (Boydston et al., 2011). A black walnut extract-based commercial
60 C) can reduce weed emergence of 90% while higher tempera- product (NatureCur®, Redox Chemicals, LLC, Burley, ID, USA)
ture (ca. 70 C) used for 6e9 s can eliminate resistant weeds. In completely inhibited growth of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and
some weed species, devitalization can reach 99% by using the hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) at a concentration of 33.3%,
following temperature for 2e5 s: 80 C in Echinocloa crus-galli, showing potential as a pre- and post-emergent bioherbicide
76 C in Setaria viridis and 75 C in Solanum nigrum (Vidotto et al., (Shrestha, 2009). Pannacci et al. (2015a) showed as the aqueous
2013). Over the last year several continous and discontinous extract of aerial biomass of Artemisia vulgaris L. has greatly reduced
steaming tools were developed with the aim to increase their the germination of Lolium multiflorum's seeds when applied as a
effectiveness and decrease their time of application and costs pre-emergence bioherbicide, in the greenhouse and field experi-
rberi et al., 2009; Vidotto et al., 2013). Studies in the laboratory,
(Ba ments. The same authors are observing as this bioherbicide can also
where crop seeds were sown immediately after steaming, showed inhibit seeds germination of Amaranthus retroflexus L., without in-
that seeds of leek, onion and sometimes carrots were tolerant to the hibition effects on seeds germination of field crops (i.e., wheat,
heat. This implies that crop sowing might be integrated with maize and rapeseed) and horticultural crops (i.e., tomato, onion,
steaming, so that steaming and sowing can be done in the same carrot and lettuce). Further studies are in progress in order to
pass, with sowing to be done after steaming (Ascard et al., 2007; investigate the possibility to develop this bioherbicide as a bio-
Melander et al., 2004). However, further research is needed to logical weed control tool in field and greenhouse crops.
determine the optimum use of steam in order to improve weed
control and energy-use efficiencies, and to reduce the cost of the 6. “Case studies”: some examples
treatments.
Considering diversity and complexity of weed management in
5. Biological weed control methods minor crops, it might be useful to summarize direct non-chemical
weed control strategies in four “case studies” (two transplanted
In the agro-ecosystems where minor crops are cultivated, bio- crops and two sown crops) drawn and modified from Lichtenhahn
logical weed control according “classical/inoculative method” does et al. (2005) (Figs. 7 and 8).
not seem to be successfully applicable on a large scale due to the It could be noted as in all the four “case studies” the number of
pulverization of land for growing, with a wide variability of crops treatments needs to be increased when the level of infestation in-
and a multispecies weed flora (Charudattan, 2001; Blossey, 2007). creases. Flex-tine harrow and flaming should be always applied in
“Inundative method” may be more feasible, but will still be difficult pre-sowing or pre-transplant after a proper stale seedbed prepa-
to commercialise in minor crops production due to the many weed ration. These two non-chemical methods may be also applied in
species and the need to register the product for many low-acreage pre-emergence of those sown crops characterized by slow germi-
crops. However, the use of bioherbicides to control weeds through nation or deep sowing (i.e. onion, carrot, fennel, beans), with the
Fig. 7. Non-chemical weed control strategies for two “case studies” in transplanted crops (from Lichtenhahn et al., 2005; modified).
Fig. 8. Non-chemical weed control strategies for two “case studies” in sown crops (from Lichtenhahn et al., 2005; modified).
caution to do preliminary tests in order to avoid damage to the greenhouse and minor crops but this seems to be a research
emerging seedlings. topic that needs to be further investigated due to its great potential
In transplanted crops at large inter-row distance, early treat- as a cultural method.
ments with traditional hoe with rigid shanks or brush-weeder for
inter-row weed control, combined with finger-weeder for intra- References
row weed control, seems to be the better weed control strategy,
especially for crops with high competitiveness (i.e. cabbages, some Ascard, J., 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different develop-
medicinal plants). Ridging can be applied to control intra-row mental stages. Weed Res. 35, 397e411.
Ascard, J., Bellinder, R.M., 1996. Mechanical in-row cultivation in row crop. In:
weeds at advanced crop growth stage before inter-row closure Proceeding Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen,
(Fig. 7). In transplanted crops with low competitiveness (i.e. onion, Denmark, pp 1121e1126.
lettuce), the above mentioned strategy needs to be supported to Ascard, J., Fogelberg, F., 2002. Mechanical intra-row weed control in organic onion
production. In: Proceedings 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical Weed Control,
precision hoeing (i.e. split-hoeing) and manual weeding in order to
Pisa, Italy, p 125. Available on-line at: http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.
increase weed control, avoiding appreciable yield losses (Fig. 7). pdf.
Sown crops characterized by reduced inter-row distance, lower Ascard, J., Hatcher, P.E., Melander, B., Upadhyaya, M.K., 2007. Thermal weed control.
competitiveness, longer critical period and small seedlings in the In: Upadhyaya, M.K., Re Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non-chemical Weed Manage-
ment e Principles, Concepts and Technology. CABI Press, Oxfordshire, UK,
first part of growth cycle, should be managed with precision hoeing pp. 155e175.
(i.e. brush-weeder or split-hoeing) for inter-row weed control, Balsari, P., Berruto, R., Ferrero, A., 1994. Flame weed control in lettuce crops. Acta
combined with finger-weeder and manual weeder for intra-row Hort. 372, 213e222.
rberi, P., Moonen, A.C., Peruzzi, A., Fontanelli, M., Raffaelli, M., 2009. Weed sup-
Ba
weed control (Fig. 8). These treatments should be repeated dur- pression by soil steaming in combination with activating compounds. Weed
ing all the critical period, according to infestation levels, inter-row Res. 49, 55e66.
width and crop growth stage. In particular, in the leafy crops (i.e. Bastiaans, L., Paolini, R., Baumann, D.T., 2008. Focus on ecological weed manage-
ment: what is hindering adoption? Weed Res. 48, 481e491.
spinach, chicory, leaf beet, lettuce) manual weeding can be neces- Batlla, D., Benech-Arnold, R.L., 2007. Predicting changes in dormancy level in weed
sary until the harvest in order to obtain an higher weed control and seed soil banks: implications for weed management. Crop Prot. 26, 189e197.
absence of weeds in the harvest product (Fig. 8). Benoit, D.L., Leroux, G., Banville, S., 2003. Influence of carrot/onion/barley cropping
sequence on the weed seed bank and field flora in an organic soil in Quebec,
Canada. Asp. Appl. Biol. 69, 69e75.
7. Conclusions Berti, A., Zanin, G., Onofri, A., Sattin, M., 2001. Sistema integrato di gestione delle
malerbe (IWMS). In: Malerbologia (Catizone P. e Zanin G., coord.). P atron Edi-
tore, Bologna, Italy, pp. 659e711.
There are two important actions in non-chemical weed man-
Blossey, B., 2007. Biological control of weeds using arthropods. In: Upadhyaya, M.K.,
agement of minor crops: 1) prevention encouraging crop plants to Re Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non-chemical Weed Management e Principles,
compete against weeds; 2) weed control including the improve- Concepts and Technology. CABI Press, Oxfordshire, UK, pp. 77e91.
ment and technological development of weed control methods and Bonciarelli, U., Onofri, A., Benincasa, P., Farneselli, M., Guiducci, M., Pannacci, E.,
Tosti, G., Tei, F., 2016. Long-term evaluation of productivity, stability and sus-
their proper use. However, these actions need to be supported by tainability forcropping systems in Mediterranean rainfed conditions. Eur. J.
research and extension, and European policies. In fact, research Agron. 77, 146e155.
could provide effective and sustainable strategies to non-chemical Bond, W., Grundy, A.C., 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming
systems. Weed Res. 41, 383e405.
weed management problems in minor crops; while consistent Boydston, R., Hang, A., 1995. Rapeseed (Brassica napus) green manure crop sup-
funding (regional, national or European) should be delivered in this presses weeds in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 9, 669e675.
regard. Furthermore, in the long term, weed problems in minor Boydston, R.A., Morra, M.J., Borek, V., Clayton, L., Vaughn, S.F., 2011. Onion and weed
response to mustard (Sinapis alba) seed meal. Weed Sci. 59, 546e552.
crops need to be overcome by combining all available solutions and Boyette, C.D., Hoagland, R.E., Abbas, H.K., 2007. Evaluation of the bioherbicide
adopting integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Myrothecium verrucaria for weed control in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum).
The adoption from farmers of specific strategies for non- Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 17, 171e178.
Brainard, D.C., Bakker, J., Myers, N., Noyes, D.C., 2012. Rye living-mulch effects on
chemical weed control in each minor crop seems to be very diffi-
soil moisture and weeds in asparagus. HortSci 47, 58e63.
cult due to the peculiarities of each minor crops in terms of culti- Brainard, D.C., Bellinder, R.R., 2004. Weed suppression in a broccoli-winter rye
vation system, area, farmer's expertise, weed flora. Furthermore, intercropping system. Weed Sci. 52, 281e290.
Brown, S.L., Brown, J.E., 1992. Effect of plastic mulch color and insecticides on thrips
weed control solutions based on herbicides, despite can help
populations and damage to tomato. HortTechnol 2, 208e211.
farmers, seem to be not sustainable for a long time, due to the Buhler, D.D., 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management.
reduction of available herbicides provoked by stringent risk Weed Sci. 50, 273e280.
assessment and subsequent authorization. Therefore, more effort is Cai, X., Gu, M., 2016. Bioherbicides in organic horticulture. Horticulturae 2 (3), 10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae2020003.
needed for the development of non-chemical alternative methods Campiglia, E., Temperini, O., Mancinelli, R., Marucci, A., Saccardo, F., 1998. Soil so-
and tools as well as approaches which help farmers to communi- larization in the Mediterranean environment: effect on weed control and yield
cate and adopt integrated non-chemical weed management of cos lettuce (Lactuca sativa L., var. longifolia Lam. Italus Hortus 5 (3), 36e42.
Campiglia, E., Temperini, O., Mancinelli, R., Saccardo, F., 2000. Effects of soil solar-
strategies. ization on the weed control of vegetable crops and on cauliflower and fennel
Future research should focus on the gaps existing for non- production in the open air. Acta Hort. 533, 249e255.
chemical weed management in greenhouse and minor crops. In Campiglia, E., Mancinelli, R., Radicetti, E., Caporali, F., 2010. Effect of cover crops and
mulches on weed control and nitrogen fertilization in tomato (Lycopersicon
particular, physical and mechanical weed control have a funda- esculentum Mill.). Crop Prot. 29, 354e363.
mental role in greenhouse and minor crops where chemical her- Candido, V., D’addabbo, T., Miccolis, V., Castronuovo, D., 2011. Weed control and
bicides are few or not available. Innovation in mechanical weeding yield response of soil solarization with different plastic films in lettuce. Sci.
Hort. 130, 491e497.
has been impressive during the last few decades, but need to be Charudattan, R., 2001. Biological control of weeds by means of plant pathogens:
increased in order to develop and to adopt the precision farming significance for integrated weed management in modern agro-ecology.
technologies for mechanical weed control. Innovative physical BioControl 46, 229e260.
Chase, C.A., Sinclair, T.R., Chellemi, D.O., Olson, S.M., Gilreath, J.P., Locascio, S.J., 1999.
methods (i.e., infrared, microwave, lasers, ultraviolet radiation,
Heat-retentive films for increasing soil temperatures during solarization in a
electrocution and freezing) are not yet mature technologies in humid, cloudy environment. HortSci 34, 1085e1089.
weed science, but could be a very interesting field of research to Chatizwa, I., 1997. Mechanical weed control: the case of hand weeders. In: Pro-
develop the cost-effective weed control tools especially for green- ceedings 1997 Brighton Crop Protection Conference e Weeds, Brighton, UK, pp
203e208.
house crops. Finally, the selection of cultivars with high competi- Chauhan, B.S., 2012. Weed ecology and weed management strategies for dryseeded
tiveness nowadays is not a priority in the breeding programmes in rice in Asia. Weed Techn 26, 1e13.
Chauhan, B.S., Johnson, D.E., 2009. Influence of tillage systems on weed seedling management. Ecol. Appl. 3, 92e122.
emergence pattern in rainfed rice. Soil Till. Res. 106, 15e21. Lichtenhahn, M., Koller, M., Dierauer, H., Baumann, D., 2005. Weed control in
Chauhan, B.S., Gill, G., Preston, C., 2006. Seedling recruitment pattern and depth of Organic Vegetable Cultivation. Available at:. Research Institute of Organic
recruitment of 10 weed species in minimum tillage and no-till seeding systems. Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland, p. 12 http://www.organicagcentre.ca/
Weed Sci. 54, 658e668. Docs/FiBL_WeedCtrl_Vegetables.pdf.
Chauhan, B.S., Singh, R.G., Mahajan, G., 2012. Ecology and management of weeds Lombardo, S., Longo, A.M.G., Lo Monaco, A., Mauromicale, G., 2012. The effect of soil
under conservation agriculture: a review. Crop Prot. 38, 57e65. solarization and fumigation on pests and yields in greenhouse tomatoes. Crop
Cirujeda, A., Anzalone, A., Aibar, J., Moreno, M.M., Zaragoza, C., 2012. Purple Prot. 37, 59e64.
nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) control with paper mulch in processing tomato. Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B.S., 2011. Effects of planting pattern and cultivar on weed
Crop Prot. 39, 66e71. and crop growth in aerobic rice system. Weed Tech. 25, 521e525.
Cordeau, S., Marion Triolet, M., Wayman, S., Steinberg, C., Guillemin, J.-P., 2016. Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B.S., 2013. The role of cultivars in managing weeds in dry-
Bioherbicides: dead in the water? A review of the existing products for inte- seeded rice production systems. Crop Prot. 49, 52e57.
grated weed management. Crop Prot. 87, 44e49. Melander, B., B arberi, P., 2004. Physical and cultural weed control in minor crops.
Covarelli, L., Pannacci, E., Beccari, G., D'Errico, F.P., Tosi, L., 2010. Two-year in- In: 4th International Weed Science Congress, Durban, 20e24 June 2004.
vestigations on the integrated control of weeds and root parasites in Virginia Available on line at: http://orgprints.org/4603/1/4603.pdf.
bright tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) in central Italy. Crop Prot. 29, 783e788. Melander, B., Elsgaard, L., Jørgersen, M.H., 2004. Band-steaming Reduces Laborious
Demir, H., Polat, E., 2011. Effects of broccoli-crispy salad intercropping on yield and Hand-weeding in Vegetables. September 2004, N. 3. Available on line at:.
quality under greenhouse conditions. Afr. J. Agr. Res. 6, 4116e4121. Newsletter from Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming http://www.
Den Hollander, N.G., Bastiaans, L., Kropff, M.J., 2007. Clover as a cover crop for weed darcof.dk/enews/sep04/steam.html.
suppression in an intercropping design II. Competitive ability of several clover Melander, B., Holst, N., Rasmussen, I.A., Hansen, P.K., 2012. Direct control of
species. Eur. J. Agron. 26, 104e112. perennial weeds between crops e Implications for organic farming. Crop Prot.
Efthimiadou, A.P., Karkanis, A.C., Bilalis, D.J., Efthimiadis, P., 2009. Review: the 40, 36e42.
phenomenon of crop-weed competition; a problem or a key for sustainable Melander, B., Lattanzi, B., Pannacci, E., 2015. Intelligent versus non-intelligent me-
weed management? Journal of Food. Agric. Environ. 7 (2), 861e868. chanical intra-row weed control in transplanted onion and cabbage. Crop Prot.
Eyre, M.D., Critchley, C.N.R., Leifert, C., Wilcockson, S.J., 2011. Crop sequence, crop 72, 1e8.
protection and fertility management effects on weed cover in an organic/con- Melander, B., Rasmussen, G., 2001. Effect of cultural methods and physical weed
ventional farm management trial. Eur. J. Agron. 34, 153e162. control on intrarow weed numbers, manual weeding and marketable yield in
European Commission, 2011. SANCO Document 7525/VI/95-rev.9. https://www. direct-sown leek and bulb onion. Weed Res. 41, 491e508.
nutfruit.org/wp-continguts/uploads/law-regulations/48013.pdf. Melander, B., Rasmussen, I.A., Ba rberi, P., 2005. Integrating physical and cultural
European Commission, 2014. Report from the Commission to the European methods of weed control - examples from European research. Weed Sci. 53,
Parliament and the Council on the Establishment of a European Fund for Minor 369e381.
Uses in the Field of Plant Protection Product, p. 15. http://ec.europa.eu/food/ Melander, E., Jørgensen, M.H., 2005. Soil steaming to reduce intrarow weed seedling
plant/pesticides/legislation/docs/com_2014_82_en.pdf. emergence. Weed Res. 45, 202e211.
Fennimore, S.A., Smith, R.F., Tourte, L., LeStrange, M., Rachuy, J.S., 2014. Evaluation Mohler, C.L., Johnson, S.E., 2009. Crop Rotation on Organic Farms: a Planning
and economics of a rotating cultivator in Bok Choy, celery, lettuce, and Radic- Manual. Available online at:. Published by Natural Resource, Agriculture, and
chio. Weed Technol. 28, 176e188. Engineering Service (NRAES), p. 156 http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
Ferrero, A., Casini, P., 2001. Mezzi fisici. In: Malerbologia (Catizone P. e Zanin G., Books/Crop-Rotation-on-Organic-Farms.
coord.). P
atron Editore, Bologna, Italy, pp. 263e278. Müller-Scha €rer, H., Potter, C.A., 1991. Cover plants in field grown vegetables: pros-
Fogelberg, F., Dock Gustavsson, A.M., 1998. Resistance against uprooting in carrots pects and limitations. In: Proceedings Brighton Crop Conference e Weeds,
(Daucus carota) and annual weeds: a basis for selective mechanical weed Brighton, UK, pp 599e604.
control. Weed Res. 38, 183e190. Neal, J., 2015. Greenhouse Weed Control - Horticulture Information Leaflet. NC
Fogelberg, F., Dock Gustavsson, A.M., 1999. Mechanical damage to annual weeds Cooperative Extension Resources. Available on line at:. NC State University
and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Res. 39, 469e479. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/greenhouse-weed-control.
Gill, H.K., McSorley, R., Treadwell, D.D., 2009. Comparative performance of different Ngouajio, M., Mcgiffen, M.E., Hutchinson, C.M., 2003. Effect of cover crop and
plastic films for soil solarization and weed suppression. HortTechnol 19, management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Prot. 22, 57e64.
769e774. Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R., Govaerts, B., 2015. Weed dynamics and conserva-
Grassbaugh, E.M., Regnier, E.E., Bennett, M.A., 2004. Comparison of organic and tion agriculture principles: a review. Field Crops Res. 183, 56e68.
inorganic mulches for heirloom tomato production. Acta Hort. 638, 171e176. Norris, R.F., Elmore, C.L., Rejmanek, M., Akey, W.C., 2001. Spatial arrangement,
Graziani, F., Onofri, A., Pannacci, E., Tei, F., Guiducci, M., 2012. Size and composition density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: I. Crop growth
of weed seedbank in long-term organic and conventional low-input cropping and yield. Weed Sci. 49, 61e68.
systems. Eur. J. Agron. 39, 52e61. Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., 2005. Mechanical weed control in sunflower. In: Pro-
Graziani, F., Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., 2007. Effetti di una prolungata omo- ceedings 13th EWRS Symposium, 19e23 June 2005. CD, Bari, Italy.
successione di frumento tenero e di due diverse tecniche di lavorazione del Pannacci, E., Graziani, F., Guiducci, M., Tei, F., 2008. Controllo meccanico delle
terreno sulla banca dei semi delle piante infestanti. In: Proceedings XXXVII malerbe in colture da seme di cipolla. In: Proceedings of Research Project
Convegno SIA, “Il Contributo della Ricerca Agronomica all’Innovazione dei “Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a supporto del piano sementiero. PRIS2 Pro-
Sistemi Colturali Mediterranei” S.L. Casentino, R. Tuttobene Ed., 13-14 Settem- getto di ricerca interregionale, Programma “Sviluppo Rurale” e Sottoprog-
bre, Catania, Italy, pp 285e286. ramma “Innovazione e Ricerca, pp. 265e275.
Graziani, F., Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., 2008a. Weed population dynamics in maize Pannacci, E., Guiducci, M., Tei, F., 2007. Mechanical weed control in organic onion
crop characterized by high and low weed density. Ital. J. Agron. 3 (3), 375e376. seed production. In: Proceedings 7th Workshop of the EWRS Working Group:
Graziani, F., Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., Tei, F., 2008b. Post-dispersal weed seed Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), Ger-
predation of Amaranthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album and Echinochloa many, 11-14 March, pp 119e120. Available on-line at: http://www.ewrs.org/
crus-galli in maize (Zea mays L.). In: Proceedings 5th International Weed Sci- pwc/doc/2007_Salem.pdf.
ence Congress, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 23-27, 2008, 297. Pannacci, E., Pettorossi, D., Tei, F., 2013. Phytotoxic effects and soil bioavailability of
Available online at: www.iwss.info/download/iwsc-2008-abstracts.pdf. aqueous extracts of sunflower on seed germination and growth of Sinapis alba
Guvenc, I., Yildirim, E., 2005. Intercropping with eggplant for proper utilisation of L., Triticum aestivum L. and Lolium multiflorum Lam. Allelopathy J. 32 (1), 23e36.
interspace under greenhouse conditions. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 70, 300e302. Pannacci, E., Tei, F., 2014. Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on weed
Hershenhorn, J., Casella, F., Vurro, M., 2016. Weed biocontrol with fungi: past, control, weed seed rain and crop yield in maize, sunflower and soyabean. Crop
present and future. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 26 (10), 1313e1328. Prot. 64, 51e59.
Hosseini, P., Karimi, H., Babaei, S., Mashhadi, H.R., Oveisi, M., 2014. Weed seed bank Pannacci, E., Tei, F., 2015. Gestione delle malerbe nelle colture minori con mezzi non
as affected by crop rotation and disturbance. Crop Prot. 64, 1e6. chimici. In: Proceedings of the XX Convegno della Societ a Italiana per la Ricerca
Isik, D., Kaya, E., Ngouajio, M., Mennan, H., 2009. Weed suppression in organic sulla Flora Infestante, Lodi, Italy, 27 October 2015, pp.163e194.
pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with winter cover crops. Crop Prot. 28, 356e363. Pannacci, E., Pettorossi, D., Regni, L., Tei, F., 2015a. Allelopathic potential of mugwort
Jabran, K., Mahajan, G., Sardana, V., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Allelopathy for weed (Artemisia vulgaris L.) to control the Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) in
control in agricultural systems. Crop Prot. 72, 57e65. winter wheat. Allelopathy J. 36 (2), 257e272.
Kruidhof, H.M., Gallandt, E.R., Haramotot, E.R., Bastiaans, L., 2011. Selective weed Pannacci, E., Graziani, F., Tei, F., 2015b. Seed Filter Extractor: a new instrument for
suppression by cover crop residues: effects of seed mass and timing of species' the evaluation of weed seedbank. Soil Till. Res. 150, 78e82.
sensitivity. Weed Res. 51, 177e186. Pannacci, E., Aibar, J., Cirujeda, A., Dobrzan ski, A., Pardo, G., Portugal, J., Tei, F., 2015c.
Kurstjens, D., Bleeker, P., 2000. Optimising torsion weeders and finger weeders. In: Weeds and weed management in peppers. In: Proceedings 17th International
Proceedings 4th EWRS Workshop on Physical Weed Control. Elspeet, The Symposium of European Weed Research Society “Weed Management in
Netherlands, pp. 30e32. Changing Environments”, Montpellier, France, 23-26 July 2015, 225.
Lamichhane, J.R., Arendse, W., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Kudsk, P., Roman, J.C., van Pannacci, E., Tei, F., Guiducci, M., 2016. Mechanical weed control in organic winter
Bijsterveldt-Gels, J.E.M., Wick, M., Messe an, A., 2015. Challenges and opportu- wheat. In: Proceedings XLV Congress of Italian Society for Agronomy, Sassari,
nities for integrated pest management in Europe: a telling example of minor Italy, 20-22 September 2016, pp 115e116. Available online at: http://www.siagr.
uses. Crop Prot. 74, 42e47. it/index.php/it/2013-02-05-10-10-45/atti-convegni-sia.
Liebman, M., Dyck, E., 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed Paolini, R., Faustini, F., Saccardo, F., Crino , P., 2006. Competitive interactions
between chick-pea genotypes and weeds. Weed Res. 46, 335e344. 354e361.
Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Di Ciolo, S., Teasdale, J.R., Mohler, C.L., 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed
Verna, P., Casaccia, D., Recinelli, E., 2005. La gestione fisica delle infestanti su emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci. 48, 385e392.
carota biologica e su altre colture tipiche dell’altopiano del Fucino (a cura di Tei, F., Ascard, J., Baumann, D.T., Caussanel, J.P., Dobrzanski, A., Froud-Williams, R.J.,
Peruzzi A). Stamperia Editoriale Pisana, Agnano Pisano, Italy, p. 143. Kleifeld, Y., Pardo Iglesias, A., Rocha, F., Ruuttunen, P., Rzozi, R.S., Sanseovic, T.,
Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Di Ciolo, S., Suso, L., 1999. Weeds and weed management in onion - a review. In: Pro-
Fantoni, E., Costa, I., Di Colo, M., Boschetti, I., 2006. Il controllo fisico delle ceedings 11th EWRS Symposium, Basel, Switzerland, 131.
infestanti su spinacio in coltivazione biologica ed integrata nella bassa Valle del Tei, F., Baumann, D.T., Bleeker, P., Dobrzanski, A., Economou, G., Fogelberg, F., Froud-
Serchio (a cura di Peruzzi A). Stamperia Editoriale Pisana, Agnano Pisano, Italy, Williams, R.J., Hoek, H., Melander, B., Rocha, F., Ruuttunen, P., Rzozi, S.B., San-
p. 111. seovic, T., Simoncic, A., Torma, M., Uygur, F.N., van der Weide, R., Verschwele, A.,
Peruzzi, A., Lulli, L., Raffaelli, M., Del Sarto, R., Frasconi, C., Ginanni, M., Villeneuve, F., Zaragoza, C., 2002a. Weeds and weed management in carrots - a
Fontanelli, M., 2009. In: Peruzzi, A. (Ed.), La Gestione Fisica Della Flora Spon- review. In: Proceedings 12th EWRS Symposium, Wageningen, The Netherlands,
tanea in Area Urbana. Felici Editore, Pisa. 24-27 June 2002, pp14e15.
Pouryousef, M., Yousefi, A.R., Oveisi, M., Asadi, F., 2015. Intercropping of fenugreek Tei, F., Stagnari, F., Granier, A., 2002b. Preliminary on physical weed control in
as living mulch at different densities for weed suppression in coriander. Crop processing spinach. In Proceedings 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cul-
Prot. 69, 60e64. tural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, 11e13 March, pp164-171. Available on-line at:
Radicetti, E., Mancinelli, R., Campiglia, E., 2012. Combined effect of genotype and http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.pdf.
inter-row tillage on yield and weed control of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in a Tei, F., Cirujeda, A., Dobrzan ski, A., et al., 2007. Weeds and weed management in
rainfed Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Res. 127, 161e169. lettuce. In: Proceedings 14th International Symposium of European Weed
Radics, L., Bogn ar, E.S., 2004. Comparison of different mulching methods for weed Research Society, 17e21 June 2007, Hamar, Norway, p 71.
control in organic green bean and tomato. Acta Hort. 638, 189e196. Tei, F., Montemurro, P., Baumann, D.T., Dobrzanski, A., Giovinazzo, R., Kleifeld, Y.,
Raffaelli, M., Barberi, P., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., 2002a. Options for mechanical Rocha, F., Rzozi, R.S., Sanseovic, T., Zaragoza, C., 2003. Weeds and weed man-
weed control in grain maize e effects on weeds. In: Proceedings 5th EWRS agement in processing tomato. ActaHort 613, 111e121.
Workshop on Physical Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, pp 147e152. Available on-line Tei, F., Pannacci, E., 2005. La gestione integrata della flora infestante nelle colture
at: http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.pdf. orticole. Rev. n. 2 e Italus Hortus 12 (4), 45e62.
Raffaelli, M., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Di Ciolo, S., 2002b. Mechanical weed control in Tei, F., Pannacci, E., 2008. Integrated weed management systems in vegetables:
sunflower and soyabean crops using spring-tine harrow: results of two-year current status and perspectives. In: Proceedings 5th International Weed Science
trials. Agric. Mediterr. 132, 112e121. Congress, June 23e27, 2008,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 326e327.
rberi, P., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., 2005. Mechanical weed control in
Raffaelli, M., Ba Available online at: www.iwss.info/download/iwsc-2008-abstracts.pdf.
maize: evaluation of weed harrowing and hoeing systems. Agric. Mediterr. 135, Tei, F., Pannacci, E., Cirujeda, A., et al., 2005. Weeds and weed management in
33e43. cabbages e a review. In: Proceedings 13th EWRS Symposium, 20e23 June 2005,
Raffaelli, M., Filippi, F., Peruzzi, A., Graifenberg, A., 2004. Flaming for intra-row Bari, Italy.
weed control in globe artichoke. In: Proceeding 6th EWRS Workshop on Tillett, N.D., Hague, T., Grundy, A.C., Dedousis, A.P., 2008. Mechanical within-row
Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway, 8-10 March, pp weed control for transplanted crops using computer vision. Biosyst. Eng. 99,
166e169. 171e178.
Rasmussen, J., 1996. Mechanical weed management. In: Proceedings Second In- Tittarelli, F., Campanelli, G., Farina, R., Napoli, R., Ciaccia, C., Testani, E., Leteo, F.,
ternational Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 943e948. Canali, S., 2014. Effect of cover crop management and compost application on
Rasmussen, J., Henriksen, C.B., Griepentrog, H.W., Nielsen, J., 2011. Punch planting, soil N fertility of organic melon. In: Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific
flame weeding and delayed sowing to reduce intra-row weeds in row crops. Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’ Organic World Congress 2014, Rahmann
Weed Res. 51, 489e498. G & Aksoy U (Eds.), 13-15 October, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 709e712. Available on
Rubiales, D., Verkleij, J., Vurro, M., Murdoch, A.J., Joel, D.M., 2009. Parasitic plant line at: http://orgprints.org/23596/1/23596_Tittarelli_MM.pdf.
management in sustainable agriculture. Weed Res. 49 (Suppl. 1), 1e5. Turner, R.J., Davies, G., Moore, H., Grundy, A.C., Mead, A., 2007. Organic weed
Runham, S.R., Town, S.J., 1995. An economic assessment of mulches in field scale management: a review of the current UK farmer perspective. Crop Prot. 26,
vegetable crops. In: Proceedings 1995 Brighton Crop Protection Conference e 377e382.
Weeds, Brighton, UK, pp 925e930. Ugen, M.A., Wien, H.C., Wortmann, C.S., 2002. Dry bean competitiveness with
Sanchez, E., Lamont Jr., W.J., Orzolele, M.D., 2008. Newspaper mulches for sup- annual weeds as affected by soil nutrient availability. Weed Sci. 50, 530e535.
pressing weeds for organic high-tunnel cucumber production. HortTechnol 18, Uludag, A., Bohren, C., Bulcke, R., et al., 2003. A review of weed control management
154e157. in green peas. Veg. Crops Res. Bul. 59, 5e16.
Santos, B.M., Dusky, J.A., Stall, W.M., Bewich, T.A., Shilling, D.G., 2004a. Mechanisms Upadhyaya, M.K., Blackshaw, R.E., 2007. Non-chemical weed management: synop-
of interference of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common sis, integration and the future. In: Upadhyaya, M.K., Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non-
purslane (Portulaca oleracea) on lettuce as influenced by phosphorus fertility. chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. CABI,
Weed Sci. 52, 78e82. Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 201e209.
Santos, B.M., Dusky, J.A., Stall, W.M., Bewich, T.A., Shilling, D.G., 2004b. Influence of Van der Schans, D., Bleeker, P., Molendijk, L., Lotz, L.A.P., Bauermeister, R., Total, R.,
method of phosphorus application on smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) Baumann, D.T., 2006. Practical Weed Control in Arable Farming and Outdoor
and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) interference in lettuce. Weed Sci. 52, Vegetable Cultivation without Chemicals. PPO publication 532. Applied Plant
797e801. Research, Wageningen University, Lelystad, The Netherlands, p. 77.
Shrestha, A., 2009. Potential of a black walnut (Juglans nigra) extract product Van der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., et al., 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed
(NatureCur) as a pre- and post-emergence bioherbicide. J. Sustain. Agric. 33, control in crop rows. Weed Res. 48, 215e224.
810e822. Vidotto, F., De Palo, F., Ferrero, A., 2013. Effect of short-duration high temperatures
Singh, M., Bhullar, M.S., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Seed bank dynamics and emergence on weed seed germination: high temperatures affecting weed seeds. Ann. Appl.
pattern of weeds as affected by tillage systems in dry direct-seeded rice. Crop Biol. 163, 454e465.
Prot. 67, 168e177. Wang, F.X., Feng, S.Y., Hou, X.Y., Kang, S.Z., Han, J.J., 2009. Potato growth with and
Sivesind, E.C., Leblanc, M.L., Cloutier, D.C., Seguin, P., Stewart, K.A., 2012. Impact of without plasticmulch in two typical regions of Northern China. Field Crops Res.
selective flame weeding on onion yield, pungency, flavonoid concentration, and 110, 123e129.
weeds. Crop Prot. 39, 45e51. Weerarathne, L.V.Y., Marambe, B., Chauhan, B.S., 2016. Intercropping as an effective
Slaughter, D.C., Giles, D.K., Downey, D., 2008. Autonomous robotic weed control component of integrated weed management in tropical root and tuber crops: a
systems: a review. Comp. Electron. Agric. 61, 63e78. review. Available online 23 September 2016 Crop Prot. http://dx.doi.org/10.
Snyder, A., Morra, M.J., Johnson-Maynard, J., Thill, D.C., 2009. Seed meals from 1016/j.cropro.2016.08.028.
brassicaceae oilseed crops as soil amendments: influence on carrot growth, Yildirim, E., Guvenc, I., 2005. Intercropping based on cauliflower: more productive,
microbial biomass nitrogen, and nitrogen mineralization. HortScience 44, profitable and highly sustainable. Eur. J. Agron. 22, 11e18.

3 Articulo de Analisis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Articulo de Analisis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Articulo de Analisis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: A review

1. Introduction management in minor crops, offering a synthesis and some ideas

Action Details Effect Future development

Treatments 2006 2007

Hoeing 11.4a 16.3b 34.3b 49.3bc

of 30e40% (Lichtenhahn et al., 2005). However, because of their

Intra-row mechanical weed Finger-weeder Torsion-weeder Flex-tines harrow

You might also like