Abstract
The production of carrots for the German market comes mainly from domestic production. To ensure the efficiency of chemical weed control and to minimize the damage of the crop a splitting of the recommended dosage up to three times is often practiced. Because of large field areas of the carrot cropping and processing enterprises, the potential to save herbicides by practicing an herbicide application adapted to the weed occurrence is high. The efficiency of a site-specific herbicide splitting on the late weed occurrence as well as on yield parameters was tested in field strip trials. Weed species and abundance were determined manually by raster sampling using a counting frame in spring before spraying. Afterwards in the three leaf growth stages of the carrots the weed coverage level was detected online using a camera sensor developed by the Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering (ATB). Based on weed coverage level maps three application zones (200 L ha-1, 300 L ha-1, 400 L ha-1) were defined. On both sides of the site specific splitting strip a uniform splitting strip (400 L ha-1) was applied. The position of the application zones were the same during site-specific splitting at the second and third herbicide spraying respectively. Compared to a conventional uniform splitting herbicide savings were 16% (2005) und 20% (2006) at each spraying time. To evaluate the efficacy of the site-specific splitting on the yield manually harvesting were performed at opposite points in both treatments. The yield parameters fresh weight and numbers of carrots “total” and “marketable” were determined. Assuming a significance level of α = 5% the difference method for controlled treatment comparison in large scale field trials (t-test) resulted in 19 of the 24 tests in total no differences between the treatments. The late weed occurrence in both treatments was low.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
Site-specific herbicide splitting saved 16% herbicide in 2005 compared with uniform splitting.
- Taxon
- carrots
Daucus carotae0 - Treatment
- site-specific herbicide splittinge5
- Outcome
- herbicide savingse1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede1
- Value
- 16%e1
- Qualifier
- 2005e1
- Comparator
- conventional uniform splittinge1
- Setting
- field strip trialse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The production of carrots for the German market comes mainly from domestic production”
e1“Compared to a conventional uniform splitting herbicide savings were 16% (2005) und 20% (2006) at each spraying time”
e5“The efficiency of a site-specific herbicide splitting on the late weed occurrence as well as on yield parameters was tested in field strip trials”
Claim · model-written summary
Site-specific herbicide splitting saved 20% herbicide in 2006 compared with uniform splitting.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- site-specific herbicide splittinge5
- Outcome
- herbicide savingse1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede1
- Value
- 20%e1
- Qualifier
- 2006e1
- Comparator
- conventional uniform splittinge1
- Setting
- field strip trialse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The production of carrots for the German market comes mainly from domestic production”
e1“Compared to a conventional uniform splitting herbicide savings were 16% (2005) und 20% (2006) at each spraying time”
e5“The efficiency of a site-specific herbicide splitting on the late weed occurrence as well as on yield parameters was tested in field strip trials”
Claim · model-written summary
In 19 of 24 tests, site-specific splitting gave no differences from uniform splitting in fresh weight and carrot numbers.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- site-specific herbicide splittinge5
- Outcome
- yield parameterse2
- Direction
- no differencese3
- Value
- 19 of the 24 testse3
- Comparator
- conventional uniform splittinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The production of carrots for the German market comes mainly from domestic production”
e1“Compared to a conventional uniform splitting herbicide savings were 16% (2005) und 20% (2006) at each spraying time”
e2“The yield parameters fresh weight and numbers of carrots “total” and “marketable” were determined”
e3“resulted in 19 of the 24 tests in total no differences between the treatments”
e5“The efficiency of a site-specific herbicide splitting on the late weed occurrence as well as on yield parameters was tested in field strip trials”
Claim · model-written summary
Late weed occurrence was low in both treatments.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae0
- Interactor
- weede4weed
- Outcome
- late weed occurrencee4
- Direction
- lowe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The production of carrots for the German market comes mainly from domestic production”
e4“The late weed occurrence in both treatments was low”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · yield · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →herbicide · yield · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →herbicide · molecular: metabolites · Daucus carota (carrot)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
climate site · molecular: metabolites · Daucus carota (carrot)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.