Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:20:37.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovative strategies for on-farm weed management in organic carrot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2007

Andrea Peruzzi ,
Marco Ginanni ,
Marco Fontanelli ,
Michele Raffaelli  and
Paolo Bàrberi
Andrea Peruzzi*
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, Via S. Michele degli Scalzi 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Marco Ginanni
Affiliation:
CIRAA E. Avanzi, University of Pisa, Via Vecchia di Marina 6, 56010 S. Piero a Grado, Pisa, Italy.
Marco Fontanelli
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, Via S. Michele degli Scalzi 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Michele Raffaelli
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, Via S. Michele degli Scalzi 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Paolo Bàrberi
Affiliation:
Land Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy.
*
*Corresponding author: aperuzzi@agr.unipi.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management is often the most troublesome technical problem to be solved in organic farming, especially in poorly competitive crops like vegetables. A four-year (2000–2003) series of trials was established to assess the possibility of adopting an innovative non-chemical weed management system in organic carrot grown on the Fucino plateau, i.e., the most important carrot-growing area in Italy. The system utilized for physical weed control was based first on a false seedbed technique followed by pre-sowing weed removal, performed with a special 2 m wide 6-row spring-tine harrow. Prior to crop emergence, a pass with a flame weeder equipped with four 50 cm wide-open flame burners was also performed. Post-emergence weed control consisted of one or more hoeing passes with a purpose-designed 11-tine precision hoe equipped with spring implements (torsion weeders and vibrating tines), in addition to hand weeding. This innovative system was applied to a novel planting pattern (sowing in ten individual rows within 2 m wide beds) and compared to the standard management system of the area (sowing within 2 m wide beds but in five bands, use of spring-tine harrowing and flame weeding pre-emergence and of traditional hoeing post-emergence). The new system was tested in different commercial farms including both early and late-sown carrot. Assessments included machine operative characteristics, labor time, weed density and biomass, crop root yield and yield quality, and economic data (physical weed control costs and crop gross margin). Compared to the standard system, the innovative system usually resulted in reduced labor time (from 28 to 40%) and total costs for physical weed control (on average −416 € ha−1). Use of the precision hoe resulted in intra-row weed reduction ranging from 65 to 90%, which also led to a marked reduction in the labor required for hand weeding. In 2001 the two systems did not differ in terms of yield and yield quality, whereas in 2002 and 2003 the innovative system showed a higher mean density of carrot plants (from 28 to 55%), root yield (from 30 to 42%), and gross margin (from 40 to 100%). Carrot yield was higher in farms which adopted an early sowing whereas root commercial quality was somewhat variable between systems and years. In general, results obtained with the innovative management system look very promising.

Keywords

organic carrotphysical weed controlfalse seedbed techniquespring-tine harrowflame weederhoeingtorsion weederhand weedinglabor cost
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 246 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ISMEA (eds). 2005. L'evoluzione del mercato delle produzioni biologiche, l'andamento dell'offerta, le problematiche della filiera e le dinamiche della domanda. Società Editrice Imago Media, Caserta, Italy.Google Scholar
2 Cianfarra, R., Aratari, A., Belmaggio, S., Recinelli, E., and Tucceri, G. (eds). 2003. Filiera orticola. Linee guida per lo sviluppo e la valorizzazione dell'orticoltura nella regione Abruzzo. ARSSA Regione Abruzzo, Avezzano, Italy.Google Scholar
3 Melander, B., Heisel, T., and Jørgensen, M.H. 2002. Band-steaming for intra-row weed control. Proceedings of 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy. p. 216–219.Google Scholar
4 Fogelberg, F. and Gustavsson, A.M. 1998. Resistance against uprooting in carrots (Daucus carota) and annual weeds: a basis for selective mechanical weed control. Weed Research 38:183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Li, B. and Watkinson, A.R. 2000. Competition along a nutrient gradient: a case study with Daucus carota and Chenopodium album. Ecological Research 15:293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Leroux, G.D., Benoit, D.L., and Banville, S. 1996. Effect of crop rotations on weed control, Bidens cernua and Erigeron canadensis populations, and carrot yields in organic soils. Crop Protection 15:171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Ricci, M.S.F., De Almeida, D.L., Ribeiro, R.D.D., De Aquino, A.M., Pereira, J.C., De Polli, H., Reis, V.M., and Eklund, C.R. 1999. Cyperus rotundus control by solarization. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:151–157.Google Scholar
8 Peruzzi, A., Borelli, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Ginanni, M., and Bàrberi, P. 2004. Weed seeds control by steam and substances in exothermic reaction. Proceedings of 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway. p. 128–138.Google Scholar
9 Peruzzi, A., Borelli, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Ginanni, M., and Bàrberi, P. 2005. Weed control by steam and compounds causing an exothermic reaction. Proceedings of 13th EWRS Symposium, Bari, Italy. Work n. 169.Google Scholar
10 Melander, B., Jørgensen, M.H., and Elsgaard, L. 2004. Recent results in the development of band-steaming for intra-row weed control. Proceedings of 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway. p. 127.Google Scholar
11 Ascard, J. and Mattsson, B. 1994. Inter-row cultivation in weed-free carrots: the effect on yield of hoeing and brush weeding. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 10:161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Fogelberg, F. 1998. Physical weed control—intra-row brush weeding and photocontrol in carrots. PhD Dissertation. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.Google Scholar
13 Fogelberg, F. 1999. Night-time soil cultivation and intra-row brush weeding for weed control in carrots (Daucus carota L.). Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Fogelberg, F. and Kritz, G. 1999. Intra-row weeding with brushes on vertical axes—factors influencing in-row soil height. Soil and Tillage Research 50:149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Radics, L., Gàl, I., and Pusztai, P. 2002. Different combinations of weed management methods in organic carrot. Proceedings of 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy. p. 137–146.Google Scholar
16 Gàl, I., Pusztai, P., and Radics, L. 2005. Non-chemical weed management in carrot. Proceedings of 13th EWRS Symposium, Bari, Italy. Work n. 154.Google Scholar
17 Aitkenhead, M.J., Dalgetty, I.A., Mullins, C.E., McDonald, A.J., and Strachan, N.J.C. 2003. Weed and crop discrimination using image analysis and artificial intelligence methods. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 39:157–171.Google Scholar
18 Bàrberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Research 42:177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Hatcher, P.E. and Melander, B. 2003. Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research 43:303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Melander, B. 2000. Mechanical weed control in transplanted sugar beet. Proceedings of 4th EWRS Workshop on Physical Weed Control, Elspeet, The Netherlands. p. 25.Google Scholar
21 Peruzzi, A., Raffaelli, M., Ginanni, M., and Borelli, M. 2003. Physical weed control in organic carrot in the Fucino Valley Italy. Proceedings of the 7th EWRS Mediterranean Symposium, Adana, Turkey. p. 37–38.Google Scholar
22 Peruzzi, A., Raffaelli, M., Ginanni, M., and Borelli, M. 2004. Physical weed control in organic carrot production. Proceedings of 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway. p. 24–38.Google Scholar
23 Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Raffaelli, M., and Fontanelli, M. 2005. Physical weed control in organic carrots in the Fucino Valley Italy. Proceedings of 13th EWRS Symposium, Bari, Italy. Work n. 166.Google Scholar
24 Bàrberi, P., Silvestri, N., Peruzzi, A., and Raffaelli, M. 2000. Finger-harrowing of durum wheat under different tillage systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:285–303.Google Scholar
25 Peruzzi, A., Di Ciolo, S., and Raffaelli, M. 1996. An experimental test bench for the study of flame weeding effects: first experimental results on rape plants (Sinapis alba L.). Proceedings of the AgEng'96 Conference, Madrid, Spain. paper 96-A-122.Google Scholar
26 Raffaelli, M. and Peruzzi, A. 2002. Sviluppo di una nuova macchina per il pirodiserbo: risultati di un biennio di sperimentazione su girasole. Rivista di Ingegneria Agraria 2:39–46.Google Scholar
27 Regulation UE 730/99 1999. Official Journal of the European Communities L93:14–19.Google Scholar
28 Cera, M. (ed.). 1976. Meccanizzazione agricola. Pàtron editore, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
29 Sartori, L. (ed.). 1998. Dispense di meccanizzazione agricola. Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
30 Melander, B. 1998. Interactions between soil cultivation in darkness, flaming, and brush weeding when used for in-row weed control in vegetables. Biological Horticulture and Agriculture 16:1–14.Google Scholar
31 Bàrberi, P., Belloni, P., Cerrai, D., Fontanelli, M., Moonen, A.C., and Raffaelli, M. 2004. Cultural weed control in organic pigeon bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor) through optimization of crop spatial arrangement. Proceedings of 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway. p. 2–7.Google Scholar
32 Ascard, J., Olstedt, N., and Bengtsson, H. 2000. Mechanical weed control using inter-row cultivation and torsion weeders in vining pea. Proceedings of 4th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Elspeet, The Netherlands. p. 41.Google Scholar
33 Rasmussen, I.A. 2004. The effect of sowing date, stale seedbed, row width and mechanical weed control on weeds and yields of organic winter wheat. Weed Research 44:12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Franceschetti, U., Belletti, P., and Quagliotti, L. 1990. Carota. In Bianco, V.V. and Pimpini, F. (eds). Orticoltura. Pàtron editore, Padova, Italy. p. 149–161.Google Scholar