The development of integrated crop management practices means that integrated weed management (IWM) systems have been developed that also embrace environmental and financial factors. The IWM systems need to be effective enough for long‐term maintenance of natural resources and agricultural productivity and also to have minimal adverse environmental impact combined with adequate economic returns to the farmer.
Key aspects of IWM systems include the prevention of weed infestation, the identification of weed species that are present, the mapping and monitoring of weed populations, the prioritisation of management, management using a combination of mutually supportive techniques (manual, mechanical, cultural, biological and chemical methods) and evaluation of their success combined with documentation and perseverance.
Through the use of such systems it is hoped that weed management may be carried out in a sustainable manner, giving protection to both financial returns and to agroecosystems.
1.9.3.1 Cultural methods
These involve tillage, where the soil is turned over with a plough and harrow before the crop is planted; flooding, to which rice is tolerant but associated weeds are not; mulching, with fabrics or synthetic membranes, which may be biodegradable, to conserve soil moisture and prevent the germination of weed seeds; and mechanical harrows, removing weeds growing in between rows of crops.
1.9.3.2 Alternative methods
Concerns about the widespread use of glyphosate in public parks and open spaces, including gardens, has led to the marketing of several unconventional alternative methods for weed control that do not rely on chemicals alone. Examples include foams, applied with hot water containing plant oils and sugars; pulses of electricity, which can kill plants by destroying the vascular bundles; microwaves, that can kill weed seeds in the soil; and directed burning with a naked flame. While these treatments may be chemical‐free, they can be labour intensive, costly, often require more than one treatment and have their own risks associated with use.
1.9.3.3 Precision weed control
Instead of spraying a whole field, precision technology can now be used to direct sprays to the weedy areas only, reducing blanket spraying and resulting in environmental benefits, such as introducing less herbicide into the environment. Aerial drones can be used to create weed maps, identifying areas to be treated. Image analysis technology is becoming increasingly refined to detect small differences in vegetation owing to weeds, often by spectral information alone and dedicated software that can identify known shapes and growth habits of weeds. Aerial photography of a crop can also be a valuable, non‐destructive method to monitor weed spread and control over time. Unmanned ground vehicles with mounted sprayers can then treat the weeds as detected. Indeed, it is perhaps only a matter of time before robotics are more widely used to monitor, detect and ensure precision weed control.
1.9.3.4 Conservation agriculture
Conservation agriculture (CA) is a system that avoids or minimises soil disturbance, combined with soil cover and crop diversification. It is considered to be a sustainable agro‐ecological approach to conserving resources in agricultural production. A major challenge to CA is weed management without the use of herbicides.
The review paper by Sims et al. (2018) lists and evaluates options for ecological and integrated weed management in CA to prevent weed pressure from building. The choice of methodology will depend on what technical options are locally available and the prevailing economic environment. A summary of methods is presented below:
1 Quality seed and clean equipment: use proven quality seed and clean machinery to avoid or lessen weed seed introduction from the external environment.
2 Reduce the weed seed bank: to deplete the weed seed bank, seed set should be avoided wherever possible. Reduced tillage and cover crops can favour weed seed predation, especially by insects and birds. ‘Beetle banks’ are strips of natural vegetation and grasses that provide a haven for seed eaters and can also prevent potential soil erosion if established to follow the contours of the land. Increased germination by minimal soil disturbance followed by mechanical or chemical control may eliminate weed flushes prior to crop establishment. Prevention of the shedding of weed seeds at cereal crop harvest can be achieved by mechanical means. ‘Chaff Carts’ are trailers attached to the rear of the harvester to collect chaff and weed seeds, which are the collected for disposal, or for animal feed. A ‘weed seed mill’ can also be trailed behind the combine and contains a mill that pulverises the chaff and weed seeds. The resultant mixture may be returned to the field as nutrients. ‘Weed headers’ remove weed flowers growing above crop height before the seed heads appear. In this case, horizontal rotors fitted with blades are attached to a tractor. This method has proven effective in low‐growing crops, such as sugar beet.
3 Crop rotation: this is a very effective cultural approach to weed management. It prevents the proliferation of weed populations that can become dominant in monocultures. Rotations of annual, biennial and perennial crops are effective, as is the inclusion of leguminous crops, which also offers a positive nitrogen input. The inclusion of crops with allelopathic properties to inhibit weed growth has also been reported. In addition, mulching can provide soil cover that prevents light from reaching the soil surface, and so reduces or inhibits weed seed germination.
Sustainable weed seed management therefore consists of a range of alternative options to herbicide use that can prevent or lessen weed seed proliferation, rather than to control them when they interfere with crop growth and development. Finally, farmers and growers are now under increased pressure to reduce agrochemical inputs, yet they struggle with the need to control herbicide‐resistant weeds. We may expect new weed control technologies to emerge in the coming decades, such as robots that scan the growing crop, with directed lasers to control weeds.
References
1 Anon. (2000) Climate Change and Agriculture in the United Kingdom. London: MAFF.
2 Baker, H.G. and Stebbins, G.L. (1965) The Genetics of Colonising Species. New York: Academic Press.
3 Brooks, A., Crook, M.J., Wilcox, A. and Cook, R.T. (2003) A laboratory evaluation of the palatability of legumes to the field slug, Deroceras reticulatum Müller. Pest Management Science 59(3), 245–251.
4 Chancellor, R.J. and Froud‐Williams, R.J. (1986) Weed problems of the next decade in Britain. Crop Protection 5, 66–72.
5 Dexter, A.G., Rothe, I and Luecke, J.L. (1999) Weed control in Roundup Ready™ and Liberty Link™ sugarbeet. In: 30th General Meeting of American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, Abstracts, p. 9.
6 Figueroa, P.F. (1989) Japanese knotweed herbicide screening trial applied as a roadside spray. Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science 42, 288–293.
7 Gajic, D and Nikocevic, G. (1973) Chemical allelopathic effects of Agrostemma githago upon wheat. Fragm. Herb. Jugoslav XXIII.
8 Grime, J.P. (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. London: Wiley.
9 Grundy, A.C. and Jones, N.E. (2002) What is the weed seed bank? In: Naylor, R.E.L. (ed.) Weed Management Handbook, 9th edn. Oxford: Blackwell/BCPC.
10 Hance, R.J. and Holly, K. (1990) Weed Control Handbook: Principles, 8th
