Abstract
Weed control is one of the most important technological operations to ensure crop yield and quality in ecological sugar beet production. However, conventional mechanical weed control is labor- and time-intensive and has adverse effects on the soil and the environment. The aim of this study was to experimentally investigate the influence of conventional mechanical and robotic weed control systems on soil properties and to assess the effectiveness of these different weed control methods in ecological sugar beet production. This study examines two different weed control systems: robotic weed control (RWC) and conventional weed control (CWC). Field experimental studies were carried out with a solar-powered field robot and conventional inter-row cultivation (CWC1—first cultivation, CWC2—second cultivation) to determine the effectiveness of mechanical weed control in ecological sugar beet crops. The influence of different weed control systems on the physical properties of the soil in the contact zone between the soil and the tires of weed control machines was investigated. The results showed that the average weed control effectiveness inter-row was higher in the RWC (81%) compared to that in the CWC2 (46%). The overall weed control effectiveness of the robotic weed control in the sugar beet inter-row and intra-row was around 49%. The measurements showed that the weed control process reduced the soil moisture and temperature in all treatments tested. Experimental studies have confirmed that the weed control operation, although carried out with relatively lightweight robots, also has an impact on soil bulk density. RWC weed control resulted in an average increase of 0.16 g cm–3 in soil bulk density in the topsoil layer (0–10 cm) after weeding. Both CWC1 and RWC increased soil penetration resistance (PR). For CWC1, the average increase in topsoil PR after weed control was 20%, while for RWC, the increase was marginal, only around 1%. Automated precision weed control by self-propelled solar-powered field robots is an important solution to reduce the need for tedious and time-consuming manual weeding.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Robotic weed control had higher inter-row weed control effectiveness than the second conventional cultivation, 81% versus 46%.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1 - Treatment
- RWCe0
- Outcome
- weed control effectiveness inter-rowe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 81%e0
- Qualifier
- 46%e0
- Comparator
- CWC2e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average weed control effectiveness inter-row was higher in the RWC (81%) compared to that in the CWC2 (46%)”
e1“sugar beet crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Robotic weed control achieved around 49% overall control in sugar beet inter-row and intra-row areas.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- robotic weed controle0
- Outcome
- overall weed control effectivenesse0
- Value
- around 49%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“overall weed control effectiveness of the robotic weed control in the sugar beet inter-row and intra-row was around 49%”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control reduced soil moisture in all tested treatments.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- weed control processe0
- Outcome
- soil moisturee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- all treatments testede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed control process reduced the soil moisture and temperature in all treatments tested”
e1“sugar beet crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control reduced soil temperature in all tested treatments.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- weed control processe0
- Outcome
- temperaturee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- all treatments testede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed control process reduced the soil moisture and temperature in all treatments tested”
e1“sugar beet crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Robotic weed control increased topsoil bulk density by an average of 0.16 g cm–3 after weeding.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- RWC weed controle0
- Outcome
- soil bulk densitye0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 0.16 g cm–3e0
- Qualifier
- topsoil layer (0–10 cm) after weedinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RWC weed control resulted in an average increase of 0.16 g cm–3 in soil bulk density in the topsoil layer (0–10 cm) after weeding”
e1“sugar beet crops”
Claim · model-written summary
First conventional cultivation increased topsoil soil penetration resistance by an average of 20%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Treatment
- CWC1e0
- Outcome
- topsoil PRe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For CWC1, the average increase in topsoil PR after weed control was 20%”
e1“sugar beet crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Robotic weed control increased topsoil soil penetration resistance by around 1%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise2
- Treatment
- RWCe0
- Outcome
- soil penetration resistance (PR)e1
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- around 1%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for RWC, the increase was marginal, only around 1%”
e1“Both CWC1 and RWC increased soil penetration resistance (PR)”
e2“sugar beet crops”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors regard automated precision weed control by solar-powered field robots as a solution to reduce manual weeding.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise1
- Outcome
- reduce the need for tedious and time-consuming manual weedinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Automated precision weed control by self-propelled solar-powered field robots is an important solution to reduce the need for tedious and time-consuming manual weeding”
e1“sugar beet crops”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · soil: physics · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
herbicide · disease · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
herbicide · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.