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: euro.pannacci@unipg.it (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
Prevention of weed seed and
weed propagules spreading
Crop rotation
Cover crops
Seedbed preparation or
transplant
Variety choice
Crop establishment
Irrigation and fertilization
 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)
 clean mechanical tools, use of high pureness crop seeds, use of fertilizers and water moderate low
without weed seeds. in a long period
 suppress weeds that require a difficult and expensive control before their scattering strategy
 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);
 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).
 prepare good seedbed (leads to a good crop establishment, an efficient mechanical and moderate moderate
chemical weed control).
 use stale seedbed high
 choose cultivars with a high competitiveness ability low high
 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
 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;

avoiding continuous cropping systems;

alternating crops with low (e.g. onion, garlic, leek, radish, let-
tuce) and high competitiveness (e.g. potato, cucurbits, etc.);

alternating the crop having an easy and inexpensive weed
management with the crop that requires a difficult and highly
cost weed management.
Mohler and Johnson (2009) showed as, unless mulches are used,
“vines crops” (i.e. Cucurbitaceae, like squash, zucchini, watermelon,
cucumber and melon), tend to become weedy because cultivation
and hand weeding are essentially impossible after the stems have
run out of the row. Moreover, weeds have usually set seed by the
time these full-season crops have matured. Following such crops
with a rapid succession of short-season crops like spinach and
lettuce that are harvested before weeds can set seed, will kill off
many of the seeds produced in the “vines crop”, reducing weed
problems in subsequent crops. Nevertheless, the applicability of
crop rotation (especially in a greenhouse cropping system) is
difficult due to practical, economical and market reasons.
Many authors (Müller-Scha €rer and Potter, 1991; Ngouajio et al.,
2003) have studied the introduction of a cover crops in a crop
rotation based system. Grasses, legume and/or crucifers can
improve weed suppression, increase soil fertility and decrease soil
erosion. Cover crops can also be used as green manure (Boydston
and Hang, 1995) or dead mulching by leaving crop residue on
place (Kruidhof et al., 2011; Tittarelli et al., 2014) or as living
mulching by intercropping both main crop and cover crop
(Brainard and Bellinder, 2004; Brainard et al., 2012). The achieve-
ment of cover crops is however strongly influenced by their man-
agement (species, date of sowing, date of incorporation or cutting,
weed flora composition, water and nutrient supply, competition
with main crop) (Den Hollander et al., 2007). Furthermore, inter-
crop may also behave as weeds, while competing with main crop.
For these reasons, intercrops may demonstrate weed control ad-
vantages over sole crops in two ways. First, greater crop yield and
less weed growth may be achieved if intercrops are more effective
than sole crops in usurping resources from weeds or suppressing
weed growth through allelopathy. Alternatively, intercrops may
provide yield advantages without suppressing weed growth below
levels observed in component sole crops if intercrops use resources
that are not exploitable by weeds or convert resources to harvest-
able material more efficiently than sole crops (Liebman and Dyck,
1993). However, in some instances, the intercropping system by
itself would not be able to provide a satisfactory level of weed
control unless the best component crops and other components of
IWM are selected along with the best compatible environmental
condition (Weerarathne et al., 2016). In this regard, hairy vetch
mulches, in sole crop or in mixture with oat, combined with
reduced mechanical weed control, could be a feasible strategy to
control weeds and to increase yields in sweet pepper (Isik et al.,
2009) and tomato (Campiglia et al., 2010). Pouryousef et al.
(2015) found that fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) can
be used as living mulch in organic coriander (Coriandrum sativum
L.) production to reduce the biomass of weeds; however, the use of
fenugreek did not provide reliable weed control throughout the
season and so must be combined with additional weed manage-
ment options (e.g. stale seedbed, competitive cultivars) to achieve
acceptable control. There are not studies on intercropping systems
useful for weed management in greenhouse crops; however, Demir
and Polat (2011), in greenhouse condition, showed that LER (Land
Equivalent Ratio) value in broccoli:crispy salad intercropping was
greater than 1. Yildirim and Guvenc (2005) obtained similar results
when cauliflower was intercropped with lettuce, crispy salad,
radish, onion and dwarf bean or when eggplant was intercropped
with bean, cos lettuce and leaf lettuce under greenhouse conditions
(Guvenc and Yildirim, 2005).
In case of parasitic weeds infestation, trap crops could be used
(in a crop rotation system) to stimulate parasitic seeds germination
and so allow an adequate weed control. This tactic is used for pea,
alfalfa, soybean, garlic, tobacco, sorghum or maize against infesta-
tion of Orobanche spp. (Rubiales et al., 2009; Covarelli et al., 2010).
The use of cover crops may involve allelopathic interactions be-
tween minor crops and other crops or weeds (Jabran et al., 2015;
Pannacci et al., 2013, 2015a).
2.3. Tillage and stale seedbed
Tillage greatly influences soil seedbank and weed emergence.
Crucial aspects of weed seeds are: dormancy, longevity, size and
 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
seedling emergence ability (Batlla and Benech-Arnold, 2007).
Tillage affects the vertical weed seed distribution in a soil profile,
and this distribution further affects weed seed germination by
influencing the soil environment surrounding the seeds (Chauhan
and Johnson, 2009). Weed seeds present at different depths can
be affected by differential moisture, temperature fluctuation, light
availability, and predator activity (Singh et al., 2015). Systems with
less soil disturbance, such as minimum tillage (MT) and/or zero
tillage (ZT), concentrate most of the weed seeds on or near the soil
surface; whereas, conventional tillage (CT) systems, basically based
on ploughing, mix weed seeds more or less uniformly in the tilled
soil depth (Fig. 1) (Chauhan and Johnson, 2009). Tillage, depending
on the type and frequency, may stimulate the germination of some
weed seeds by exposing buried seeds to light, aerating soil, and
increasing soil temperature and seed-soil moisture contact
(Chauhan et al., 2006). In this context, ZT or MT systems may reduce
the emergence of seedlings of some weed species, as seeds at the
soil surface are prone to rapid desiccation and predation (Graziani
et al., 2008b; Singh et al., 2015); however, weed species with small
seed, scarcely dormant seed with a low longevity can rapidly in-
crease if not well controlled (Graziani et al., 2007). In this latter
case, a subsequent tillage based on ploughing is recommended to
bury surface seeds deeper in the soil, increasing their mortality and
reducing seedling emergence and seed bank (Pannacci et al.,
2015b). On the other hand, ploughing, burying seeds deeper in
the soil, can preserve weed species with seeds characterized by
high longevity and secondary dormancy (Singh et al., 2015;
Graziani et al., 2007).
A good seedbed preparation is important for: 1) a better crop
establishment (sowing and/or transplant); 2) a fast canopy closure;
3) an effective mechanical weed control.
An earlier seedbed preparation combined with irrigation
(whenever necessary) stimulates seed germination of certain weed
species (2e3 weeks before crop emergence or transplant) among
the first 40e60 mm soil layer (Melander et al., 2005; Rasmussen
et al., 2011). Emerged weeds are than eliminated by slight har-
rowing (flex-tine harrow) or flaming.
Harrowing and sowing should be carried out very shallowly (10
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).
47
or 20 mm) in order to avoid germination of new flush of weed
seeds. Stale seedbed was effective in integrated weed management
and organic systems on carrot (Peruzzi et al., 2005; Tei et al.,
2002a), onion (Tei et al., 1999), cabbage (Tei et al., 2005), spinach
(Peruzzi et al., 2006; Tei et al., 2002a), lettuce (Tei et al., 2007) and
peppers (Pannacci et al., 2015c).
2.4. Varieties selection
Crop varieties are chosen because of their productivity, quality
and resistance ability to biotic and abiotic stress. Other features
such as root development, faster initial growth, wide leaf area and
allelopathic action should be introduced into new varieties in order
to better compete against weeds. However, though the develop-
ment of competitive cultivars in minor crops would provide a safe
and environmentally benign tool for weed management, it has not
been addressed seriously by plant breeders, as already observed in
other crops (Mahajan and Chauhan, 2013). Only few studies can be
found where breeders have been recently developing new varieties
taking into account these features (Paolini et al., 2006; Radicetti
et al., 2012). In particular, Radicetti et al. (2012) found that in the
rainfed Mediterranean environment of central Italy, combining
highly yielding competitive chickpea genotypes with 2 inter-row
hoeings, applied at 25 and 50 days after emergence, is a feasible
strategy in order to prevent consistent chickpea seed yield reduc-
tion caused by the weeds.
The role of competitive cultivars can be exploited further with
agronomic manipulations such as altered plant spatial pattern and
sowing time, and narrow crop rows, which might be helpful in
providing supplemental weed control when herbicides should be
reduced or can not be used as in organic farming (Mahajan and
Chauhan, 2011). Using competitive cultivars to suppress weeds
might substantially reduce selection pressure, herbicide use, and
labour costs and permit weeds to be controlled easier inside to a
non-chemical weed management system. For these reasons, it
could be suggested that, the minor crops varieties should be
selected according the plant traits that are associated with weed
competitiveness, like: height together with early canopy cover;
48 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
high tiller density; droopy leaves; high biomass accumulation at
the early crop stage; high leaf area index and high specific leaf area
during vegetative growth, rapid canopy ground cover and early
vigour; as observed in other crops (Mahajan and Chauhan, 2013).
However, it's well to point out that the use of weed-competitive
cultivars is unlikely to be feasible as a stand-alone technology but
rather it may be a valuable component of integrated measures
(Chauhan, 2012).
2.5. Crop establishment
Crop's seeds with a high vigour, a well-prepared seedbed and an
adequate sowing depth are crucial in order to have a regular
emergence of plants and a well-established crop that result in a
high competitiveness of crop against weeds.
Transplanted crops are preferred to sown crops because of their
initial competitive capacity against to weeds. Furthermore, a
transplanted crop has a shorter critical period of competition and
mechanical or chemical weed control are easily carried out. An
increased crop density is successfully used to reduce the space
between crop rows and so it promotes crop competitiveness (Norris
et al., 2001; Uludag et al., 2003). Paired rows are also used in crops
as pepper, tomato and cabbage to promote crop competitiveness.
Transplant is however sometimes limited (in an integrated weed
management system) because of the following reasons: 1) high cost
of transplanted crop plants (e.g. tomato, pepper); 2) negative effect
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
weed control (e.g. onion, carrot, fennel and coriander) (Bastiaans
et al., 2008). In crops as winter cereals (where only flex-tine har-
row can be used) a larger inter-row space could be adopted in order
to allow the use of other mechanical tools (e.g. traditional hoe or
precision hoe) (Pannacci et al., 2016).
2.6. Irrigation and fertilization
It is difficult to understand the effects of irrigation and fertil-
ization in integrated weed management systems. The disturbance
of irrigation and fertilization on competition between crop plants
and weed community is scarcely predictable (Santos et al., 2004a;
Ugen et al., 2002). In general, weeds have more aggressive
nutrient uptake compared to crops, therefore altering timing
placement, and source in order to preferentially provide the crop
with better access to nutrients is desirable (Nichols et al., 2015). In
IWMS, local fertilization promotes crop growth during initial stage
(e.g. starter fertilizer) and excludes weeds to take advantage from
nutrient and water (fertirrigation, strip fertilization, drip irrigation)
(Santos et al., 2004b). In irrigated environments, spatial and tem-
poral variation of soil moisture offers opportunities for weed con-
trol. When the top layer of soil is dry, planting large-seeded crops
into deep soil moisture can provide crops with an initial advantage
over weeds (Nichols et al., 2015). A similar strategy could be also
favourably adopted in arid conditions on transplanted or seeded
minor crops managed by subirrigation. Indeed, it was noted that
seed production of several weeds (i.e. Galium aparine L., Avena fatua
L., Avena sterilis L., Echinochloa crus-galli L., Sinapis arvensis L. and
Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr.) were reduced by competition and
moisture stress, and the seeds produced by weeds grown in drier
soil were small and had negligible dormancy. Hence, in dry con-
ditions, the competitiveness of weeds and their potential to pro-
duce persistent seeds may be reduced (Efthimiadou et al., 2009).
Finally, another utilization of water is to apply irrigation in false
seedbed technique in order to germinate weeds, terminate them
using flaming or spring-tine arrowing and then sow or transplant
the crop into the clean seed bed (Chauhan et al., 2012).
3. Mechanical weed control methods
Over the last 15 years, organic farming has stimulated the
development of new mechanical weed control methods (Bond and
Grundy, 2001; Pannacci and Tei, 2014; Van der Weide et al., 2008).
Nowadays, mechanical weed control methods are effective, fast
and do not leave chemical residues on crop plants (Pannacci and
Tei, 2014). For these reasons, mechanical weed control methods
are the main direct system to suppress weeds in organic and low-
input cropping systems. In conventional cropping systems how-
ever, mechanical weed control methods (used in a IWMS context)
could also be used to reduce dependence on herbicides, prevent the
selection of herbicide-resistant species and maintain a balanced
and easily manageable weed community (Berti et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, mechanical weed control has some drawbacks: 1)
it requires time and high costs that could have been spent on other
crop operations; 2) climatic and soil condition can greatly influence
timing and effectiveness 3) scarce effectiveness on intra-row
weeds; 4) skilled operators are required for better adjusting and
driving mechanical weed tools; 5) a high initial price and expensive
service (Van der Schans et al., 2006).
Mechanical weed tools can be classified based on their mode of
action towards crop row: 1) Inter-row cultivators; 2) Intra-row
cultivators.
3.1. Inter-row cultivators
In row crops (e.g. maize), mechanical weed control can be se-
lective (regarding to crop plants) by using tools that only till be-
tween the inter-row space. Cultivation has a strong action and
weed suppression is carried out by uprooting, cutting, shredding,
tearing, burying (Table 3).
3.1.1. Hoe
Hoes that are used for mechanical weed control can be classified
based on their working tools: traditional hoe; rotary hoe; rotary
tilling cultivators (Table 3).
Traditional hoe is pulled by tractor and it has a wide range of
working tools (blade, sweep, duckfoot, etc.) mounted on a rigid or
flexible shank. Generally, the use of rigid shanks is advisable in clay
soils because they better crumble soil crust allowing a greatly weed
control while in sandy soils flexible shanks are more effective.
Weed control is mainly achieved by cutting, uprooting and burying
of small weed plants. Weeding action, however, depends on
working tool, weed species and weed growth stage (Table 3).
In rotary hoe, more sophisticated grouped working tools (each
operating in inter-row space) such as discs and spike wheels,
permit a weed control action reached by uprooting and burying.
Working tool rotation is allowed by tractor pulling (e.g. split-hoe)
or by tractor PTO (rotary tilling cultivators having multiple heads).
Both traditional and rotary hoe allow a late mechanical weed
control when crop plants are well developed (0.4e0.5 m high and
before crop canopy closure). Furthermore, they have high working
speed (from 4 to 8 km h
1 depending on the hoe) that allows a
rapid cultivation and is low time-consuming (depending on hoe
width). These hoes are generally used in the field crops with wide
rows (from 0.30 m to 0.75 m) (i.e. maize, sunflower, soyabean, etc.);
whereas are not adapted to work in the greenhouse crops due to
the high width of machineries. However, a lot of minor crops, like
some vegetables (i.e. cabbages, artichoke), seed crops, herbs and
plants for medicinal use and spices can be managed using hoes for
weed control. Hoe weeding effectiveness is linked to soil properties
(such as moisture and texture), weather conditions after cultivation
and working tool features (size, shape and working depth); rainy
conditions after soil cultivation can decrease weeding effectiveness
 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58 49

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. m
2) Weed density (n. m
2) Weed dry matter (g m
2)

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 h
1) 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).
50 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
range of working tools such as goosefoot, L-shaped tines, discs and
flexible teeth.
Inter-row hoeing can finally be used when chemical weed
control is carried out on crop row. A combined use of inter-row
hoeing and herbicides (along crop row) can lead to a decreased
use of chemical compounds up to 65% (Pannacci and Tei, 2014).
3.1.2. Brush-weeder
The working tool of rotary brush weeder is a brush on poly-
propylene mounted on a vertical or horizontal axis and powered by
tractor PTO; weeding action is due to tearing and uprooting
(Table 3).
Horizontal brush weeder eliminates weeds on inter-row space
while vertical brush weeder controls weeds on intra-row space. In
horizontal brush weeder, brushes can be adjusted on horizontal
axis to fit with inter-row space and crop plants are protected by
shields. Soil is cultivated shallowly to avoid the emergence of new
flush of weeds. Brush weeders are often used in horticultural crops
and greenhouse crops (i.e. tomato, lettuce, chicory, carrot, spinach,
etc.) with inter-row distance from 0.20-0.25 m to 0.40 m (Tei et al.,
2003; Tei and Pannacci, 2005: Turner et al., 2007) and especially
against weeds at early growth stage (from cotyledon to 4 true-
leaves stage) (Table 3) (Fogelberg and Dock Gustavsson, 1999).
The negative aspects are: 1) low effectiveness with developed
weeds; 2) low operation capability (from 0.3 to 0.5 ha h
1); 3) fast
brush decay; 4) effectiveness is strictly dependent on soil moisture.
3.1.3. Split-hoe
This tool has been recently developed in Germany (Asperg
Gartnereibedarf, Germany) to eliminate weeds in inter-row space
in herbaceous, horticultural crops and greenhouse crops (Table 3).
Split-hoe has the advantages of hoe, rotary tilling cultivator and
brush weeder without having their disadvantages. In fact, the
effectiveness of hoe, rotary tilling cultivator and brush weeder is
strictly related to soil moisture and weed specie while split-hoe is
less dependent on these parameters (Table 3). For this reason, split-
hoe has a wide range of application and a stronger and unselective
action among small, developed, and perennial weeds (Pannacci and
Tei, 2014).
Split-hoe eliminates weeds on inter-row space ranged from 0.4
to 0.5 to 0.2e0.25 m. Crop plants are protected by a shield and
therefore an uncultivated soil band of 80 mm c.a. among crop row is
left (Fig. 3a).
As a consequence of wide rigid hoes, weeding action is com-
bined with gangs of spike-wheels mounted on a horizontal axis
powerd by PTO of the tractor (Fig. 3b). Rigid hoes provide cutting
and pulling up weed plants while spike-wheels uproote and
separate them from soil particles. Uprooted weed plants are then
rapidly dried on the soil surface (Fig. 4).
Split-hoe has shown an effectiveness from 65% up to 90%,
comparing to untreated control, against a weed flora composed by
Amaranthus retroflexus L., Solanum nigrum L., Chenopodium album L.,
and Echinochloa-crus-galli L. (Pannacci and Covarelli, 2005). On
onion seed production (inter-row space of 0.5 m) (Table 2) and
sown spinach (inter-crop distance of 0.25 m) split-hoe reduced
weed number of 70% and 80%, respectively (compared to unculti-
vated crop) (Pannacci et al., 2008; Tei et al., 2002b). These facts
underlined that split-hoe could be used as mechanical weed con-
trol tactic in transplanted or sown minor crops (e.g. lettuce, chicory,
cabbage, carrot, onion, chickpea, lentil, bean, etc.) when the me-
chanical treatment is repeated several times and inter-row space is
among 0.20 and 0.25 m. Crop plants must be smaller than the
shields, i.e. crop growth stage and vegetation features are crucial in
order to avoid crop injury (Fig. 3a).
3.2. Intra-row cultivators
Many authors have pointed out that the main problem in weed
control is caused by intra-row weeds (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996;
Ascard and Fogelberg, 2002; Melander et al., 2015; Melander and
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
(Table 4). These tools, combined with inter-row weed methods can
increase the effectiveness of mechanical weed control.
3.2.1. Finger-weeder
Finger-weeder (Kress Umweltschonende Landtechnik, Germany
available on line: http://www.kress-landtechnik.de/wEnglisch/
produkte/gemuesebau/hacktechnik/fingerhacke_start.shtml?
navid¼12) (Fig. 5) works both in inter-row crop space and intra-
row crop line to control weeds, especially in horticultural and
greenhouse crops with inter-row spacing from 0.25-0.30 m to
0.40e0.50 m (i.e., tomato, celery, onion, lettuce, chicory, leak,
spinach, fennel, French bean, common bean, carrot, radish, etc.)
(Table 4). Cultivation on inter-row crop space is carried out by
special-flat share type “Holland” (340 mm wide, http://www.kress-
landtechnik.de/wEnglisch/produkte/gemuesebau/hacktechnik/
hackwerkzeug/hackwerkzeuge_start.shtml?navid¼31). Intra-row
weeding is achieved by rubber-finger weeders consisting of two
pairs of ground-driven wheels equipped with rubber fingers stir-
ring the soil surface. The wheels meet in the crop row, pulling out
small weeds during the process (Fig. 5). Working depth varies from
10 to 30 mm (Table 4). Finger weeder needs very accurate steering
to work as close as possible in the crop rows and its use is rec-
ommended when crop plants are well-rooted (from 4 true-leaves);
therefore, the tool can cultivate maximum 6 crop rows simulta-
neously and its working speed varies from 4 to 5 km h
1 (Table 4).
Experiments on horticultural crops have shown a low effec-
tiveness against weeds over the stage of 2e4 true-leaves, in clay
soils and a low selectivity of crop plants (Ascard and Bellinder,
1996; Kurstjens and Bleeker, 2000). Finger weeding on sown on-
ion (treated when crop was at cotyledonal stage) had an effec-
tiveness of 50% (with a 182 plants m
2 and 27 plants m
2 density of
Portulaca oleracea L. and A. retroflexus, respectively) against weeds
and caused a decreased crop density of 25% (Pannacci et al., 2007,
2008). The same field conditions were used in a study on
spinach: crop was sown at 0.25 m of inter-row space and finger
weeder was used when crop was at 4e6 true-leaves stage; finger
weeding decreased weed density of 68% (Tei et al., 2002b). In
organic transplanted tomato, with inter-row space of 1 m, finger
weeder can be used from the tomato growth stage of 2e3 leaves on
main shoot unfolded to 8e9 leaves, obtaining a good effectiveness
in controlling dicotyledonous intra-row weeds and a good selec-
tivity toward crop plants. Against a high infestation rate of
A. retroflexus, P. oleracea, C. album and E. crus-galli, finger weeder
showed a weeding action lower than 65% because it was unable to
control weeds over 2e4 true-leaves stage (especially grass species)
in clay soil. Finger weeder combined with a split-hoe can be suc-
cessfully used to increase weeding action in low weed density (and
when dicotyledonous weed species are dominant) and in loose soil
conditions (Table 4) (Pannacci et al., 2008; Pannacci and Covarelli,
2005; Pannacci and Tei, 2014).
3.2.2. Torsion weeder
Torsion weeder is a very simple tool formed by pairs of spring
tines (having a diameter of 90 mm) connected to a rigid frame.
Spring tine can be divided in two parts: the first one is a verical axis
of 0.3e0.4 m pointed to the soil surface; the second is a horizontal,
angled part pointed to crop plant. Torsion weeder is generally
 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58 51

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
Working depth
Soil texture
Inter-row distance
Optimum weed growth stage
Optimum crop growth stage
Suitable crops

1
Work capacity (ha h ) with a
fixed working width
Additional information

uprooting and burying
uprooting and burying
uprooting and burying

10e30 mm
10e30 mm
10e30 mm

better in loose and not compacted soils
better in loose and not compacted
better in loose and not compacted soils
soils

from 0.25-0.30 m to 0.40e0.50 m
from 0.20-0.25 m to 0.75 m

from cotyledon to 2e4 true-leaves stage
from cotyledon to 2 true-leaves stage
from cotyledon to 2e4 true-leaves 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)

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

0.5 (1.5 m)
0.5 (1.5 m)
2.5 (6 m)

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
52 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58

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
(i.e. common bean, cabbage, tomato, leak, celery, lettuce, fennel)
where its effectiveness has been proved. Onion yield production
was similar both when using torsion weeder and using chemical
weed control (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996). In leek, torsion weeder
had a weeding action of 80% (Kurstjens and Bleeker, 2000).
Torsion weeder showed good results in experiments on maize
and sugar beet, especially against small weeds; the optimum weed
growth stage is from cotyledon to 2 true-leaves stage (Table 4). Crop
selectivity is influenced by crop growth stage and a good tool
setting (Kurstjens and Bleeker, 2000; Peruzzi et al., 2006; Raffaelli
et al., 2005. In particular, in order to minimize crop damage, tor-
sion weeder should be used when crop plants are well-rooted (after
2-4-true-leaves crop growth stage), setting the spring tines not too
close to the crop plants (Table 4).
3.2.3. Flex-tine harrow
This tool is formed by flexible tines (from 6 to 8 mm of diameter)
mounted on modular rigid frames. Flex-tine harrow allows a full-
field cultivation (Fig. 6) and for this reason is normally used in
field crops, whereas is not favourably applied in greenhouse crops.
Working depth and aggressiveness can be increased by modifying
the tine tension so that they are angled forward. Flex-tine harrow
has a wide range of applicability. In organic winter cereals it is the
only available mechanical weed control tool (Pannacci et al., 2016).
Over the last years many experiments have shown that it is possible
to use flex-tine harrow in crops as maize, sunflower, common bean,
carrot, onion, pea, lentil, chickpea, etc (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996;
Pannacci and Tei, 2014; Raffaelli et al., 2002a, 2002b). (Table 4). In
order to minimize crop damage, flex-tine harrow should be used
when crop plants are well-rooted (after 4-true-leaves crop growth
stage) (Lichtenhahn et al., 2005) (Table 4). For this reason, crops as
pea, lentil, bean and chickpea, sowed at narrow row (0.15e0.20 m),
can be favourably treated reducing the risk to uproot or to damage
crop plants, thanks to their sowing depth and strong roots. Flex-
tine harrow is more effective against small broadleaves weeds
(cotyledon stage), while is less effective to control grass species and
ineffective on perennial weeds (Melander et al., 2012).
Flex-tine harrow can also be used in: 1) full-field cultivation
before sowing or transplanting; 2) early seedbad preparation; 3)
pre-emergence cultivation (in crop with a low growth rate); 4)
situation where stale seedbad was not adopted.
In a study on onion for seed production, a treatment with flex-
tine harrow was carried out when the crop had a leaf 10e20 mm
long and weeds were at 2 true-leaves stage. A high density of
P. oleracea (182 plants m
2) and A. retroflexus (27 plants m
2) was
established. Flex-tine harrow eliminated just 25% of weeds and
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).
 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
Experiments in central Italy were conducted on weed community
composed by A. retroflexus, P. oleracea, C. album, P. persicaria, D.
sanguinalis and E. crus-galli. Weed action of flex-tine harrow was
lower than 50% due to poor effectiveness on developed weeds
(more than 2 true-leaves stage). In particular, weeding action was
inadequate toward P. persicaria, D. sanguinalis and E. crus-galli
(Pannacci and Tei, 2014). A double treatment with flex-tine harrow
did not significantly increase weed control regarding to single
cultivation (Pannacci and Tei, 2014). Another experiment under-
lined the importance of tine setting in order to increase weeding
effectiveness and crop selectivity (Raffaelli et al., 2005).
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the features of inter and intra-row
mechanical weed control tools.
The effectiveness of mechanical weed tools is strongly influ-
enced by soil texture, soil moisture, weed species, weed growth
stage (Fogelberg and Dock Gustavsson, 1999) and their resistance to
uprooting (Fogelberg and Dock Gustavsson, 1998). The use of me-
chanical weed tools should be previously tested under different
soil, climatic and cropping conditions (Rasmussen, 1996). New
applications of mechanical weed control methods are having an
increase interest due to a higher demand of organic food or food
produced with a reduced use of chemical compounds (integrated
cropping system).
Over the last years, a cooperation among precision farming,
researchers and industry has developed modern mechanical weed
control tools equipped with sensors or cameras in order to auto-
mate weed control (Slaughter et al., 2008).
Some machines with an automated weed control system are
nowadays available on European market: Robovator (www.
visionweeding.com), Robocrop (www.garford.com) and Steketee
IC (www.steketee.com) (Melander et al., 2015). These tools are
efficient with a high intra-row and inter-row space among crop
plants (low crop density). Transplanted crops are efficiently treated
because there is a great difference, in terms of growth, among crop
and weed plants. Up to now, there are only few studies on weeding
effectiveness available. Robocrop has shown a weeding control
ranged from 62% to 87% in a 240 mm zone radious crop plants in
transplanted cabbage (Tillett et al., 2008). Fennimore et al. (2014)
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
difference in intra-row weed control by using Robovator or other
tools (flex-tine harrow, finger weeder and torsion weeder) on
transplanted onion and cabbage.
3.2.4. Manual weeding
Despite an accurate weed management, the adoption of stale
seedbad, the use of pre-emergence and/or post-emergence
flaming, a repeated inter and intra-row cultivation, manual weed-
ing is often required in organic cropping systems (Chatizwa, 1997).
Hand labour in organic row crops is high: 300 h ha
1 in onion and
500 h ha
1 in carrot (Tei et al., 1999, 2002b); 175 h ha
1 for direct-
seeded onions, 24 h ha
1 for transplanted lettuce and 162 h ha
1 for
sown fennel (Van der Weide et al., 2008); 120e300 h ha
1 for
celery, 100e200 h ha
1 for spinach and 60e100 h ha
1 for French
beans (the lower limit in open-field cultivation and the upper limit
in tunnel cultivation) (Lichtenhahn et al., 2005).
4. Physical weed control methods
Physical weed control methods used in minor crops are:
mulching, solarization, flaming and steaming (Melander et al.,
2005; Melander and Jørgensen, 2005; Peruzzi et al., 2009). Re-
searchers are recently studying other thermal weed control
methods (freezing, microwaves, laser, electirc and gamma ray).
53
Nowadays these methods are nevertheless unusable and
uneconomical.
4.1. Mulching
Organic mulching (e.g. cereal straw, leaves, pine needles, mash
cortex) sometimes improves physical, chemical and biological soil
properties (Grassbaugh et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2009). The effec-
tivness of an organic mulch it depends on its thickness (Teasdale
and Mohler, 2000). The cost of an organic mulch is also impor-
tant and depends on its origin (Runham and Town, 1995). Organic
mulch is mainly used in organic cropping systems.
Polyethylene mulch is widely used in horticultural crops (e.g.
strawberry, tomato, eggplant, muskmelon, watermelon, etc.)
because its effectivness in weeding control. This method however
leads to a small soil temperature increases compared to some
transparent mulch.
Over the last years photo-selective films (e.g. white-black,
brown, red-brown, silver-brown, silver-black, yellow-brown)
were revised in order to reduce their initial price. Photo-selective
films combined the effect of transparent and black films. Further-
more, it has also a repulsive effect on aphid populations (Brown and
Brown, 1992).
Other thermoplastic films made by corn starch are used because
of their durable mulching effect (2e4 months) that protects crop
plants against weeds along the sensitive crop growing period.
Weeding action and decomposition of thermoplastic films are
mainly influeced by their thickness and composition.
Non-plastic matherial are also interesting. Paper mulches can be
well-mixed with soil and greatly eliminated weed plants in
watermelon (Sanchez et al., 2008), common bean and tomato
(Radics and Bogna r, 2004) and in processing tomato infested with
Cyperus rotundus L. (Cirujeda et al., 2012). Mulching is generally
more effective against annual weeds rather than perennial weeds
(e.g. Cyperus spp., Elymus repens (L.) Gould., Digitaria sanguinalis (L.)
Scop., Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. e Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.)
because they greatly perforate plastic films (Bond and Grundy,
2001; Ferrero and Casini, 2001).
4.2. Solarization
In this method wet soil is covered by a trasparent plastic film
(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
for 4e12 weeks and a high temperature is needed. This system is
used to control nematodes and fungal diseases and is effective in
controlling weed plants despite is mainly used to control nema-
todes and fungal diseases (Gill et al., 2009). Solarization permits to
maintain a high soil temperature (>40  C) that kills weed seeds or
weedseedlings (Chase et al., 1999). In some species if lethal tem-
perature is not reached, dormancy can be broken allowing an
emergence of a new flush of weed seedlings; this fact can occour
along the first soil layer (Vidotto et al., 2013).
Weed species are differently sensitive to solarization: annual
weeds are sensitive but not Avena fatua and P. oleracea that are
slightly tolerant and Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. that is relatively
tolerant; perennial weeds (Convolvulus arvensis L., Cyperus spp.
C. dactylon, S. halepense and Equisetum spp.) can be relatively sen-
sitive or tolerant.
Although solarization was found to be effective both in field and
glasshouse (Campiglia et al., 1998, 2000; Candido et al., 2011), its
application is normally restricted to vegetable and minor crops (e.g.
tomato, radish, lettuce, colewort, cucumber, pepper, fennel, cauli-
flower) under greenhouse cultivation (Lombardo et al., 2012).
54 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
4.3. Flaming
Flaming is the most used thermal weed method (Ascard et al.,
2007; Ferrero and Casini, 2001). The effectiveness of flaming de-
pends on weed growth stage and weed morphology. Dicotyle-
donous and young weed plants are more sensitive compared to
developed plants and grass species respectively. In dicotyledonous
plants in fact, meristems are not protected and so they are exposed
to the thermal action of weeding (Ascard, 1995).
Flaming tools powered by liquid petroleum gas (LPG) can be
used: 1) pre-sowing (or pre-transplant) combined with stale
seedbed (Balsari et al., 1994); 2) pre-emergence when weeds
emerge before crop plants because crop seeds are sown deeply
rather than weed seeds (this tactic is used in low germination crop
as carrot, onion, persley, celery, leek and spinach) (Melander and
Rasmussen, 2001; Peruzzi et al., 2005, 2006); 3) post-emergence
with or without protective shield according to crop tolerance to
high temperature (e.g. onion, garlic, cabbage, artichoke, spinach,
sweet corn) (Raffaelli et al., 2004; Sivesind et al., 2012; Tei et al.,
2002b).
In the greenhouse, flaming with propane or butane is a viable
option to kill small emerged weeds under benches and along
walkways if landscape fabric is not used. It is also recommended
that weeds be small and that ventilation is operational with
adequate air flow when flaming is performed. However, the high
cost of labour, fuel and equipment together to the high dimension
of the machineries, seems to suggest the use of flaming in the field
crops with wide rows; limiting the applications in the greenhouse
crops to the pre-sowing (or pre-transplant) treatments combined
with stale seedbed, using small machines or portable flame weeder.
4.4. Steaming
Steam can be used to devitalize weed seeds and propagules.
Melander and Jørgensen (2005) demonstrated steaming (at least
60  C) can reduce weed emergence of 90% while higher tempera-
ture (ca. 70  C) used for 6e9 s can eliminate resistant weeds. In
some weed species, devitalization can reach 99% by using the
following temperature for 2e5 s: 80  C in Echinocloa crus-galli,
76  C in Setaria viridis and 75  C in Solanum nigrum (Vidotto et al.,
2013). Over the last year several continous and discontinous
steaming tools were developed with the aim to increase their
effectiveness and decrease their time of application and costs

rberi et al., 2009; Vidotto et al., 2013). Studies in the laboratory,
(Ba
where crop seeds were sown immediately after steaming, showed
that seeds of leek, onion and sometimes carrots were tolerant to the
heat. This implies that crop sowing might be integrated with
steaming, so that steaming and sowing can be done in the same
pass, with sowing to be done after steaming (Ascard et al., 2007;
Melander et al., 2004). However, further research is needed to
determine the optimum use of steam in order to improve weed
control and energy-use efficiencies, and to reduce the cost of the
treatments.
5. Biological weed control methods
In the agro-ecosystems where minor crops are cultivated, bio-
logical weed control according “classical/inoculative method” does
not seem to be successfully applicable on a large scale due to the
pulverization of land for growing, with a wide variability of crops
and a multispecies weed flora (Charudattan, 2001; Blossey, 2007).
“Inundative method” may be more feasible, but will still be difficult
to commercialise in minor crops production due to the many weed
species and the need to register the product for many low-acreage
crops. However, the use of bioherbicides to control weeds through
the use of natural products, extracts, and natural biological agents
such as fungi and bacteria to attack weeds is becoming an effective
tool, that need to be more investigated in order to increase the
possibilities to control weeds also in minor and greenhouse crops,
cultivated in integrated and organic horticulture (Cai and Gu, 2016).
Recent reviews on the existing products on the market and per-
spectives on the integration of bioherbicides in cropping systems
for integrated weed management were given by Cordeau et al.
(2016), Cai and Gu (2016) and Hershenhorn et al. (2016). In
particular, the fungus Alternaria destruens L. Simmons, strain 059, is
the active principle of Smoulder®, a bioherbicide used against the
Cuscuta genus. It controls several species of dodders that infest
different major and minor crops such as alfalfa, carrot, cranberry,
sweet pepper, tomato, eggplant, cornflower, and ornamental
ligneous plants. This bioherbicide was produced and registered by
Loveland Products Inc., Greely CO, and Sylvan Bio Inc., Kittanning,
PA, and authorized by the EPA in 2005 (Cordeau et al., 2016). In
greenhouse and field tomato studies, applying the fungus Myr-
othecium verrucaria as a bioherbicide did not affect tomato growth
throughout the growing season but killed 90%e95% of purslane
species and 85%e95% of spurge species, and the yield was the same
as with conventional herbicide application (Boyette et al., 2007).
Brassicaceae seed meals were used to increase soil inorganic ni-
trogen and the yields of carrot, which had high efficacy in con-
trolling weeds in organic production (Snyder et al., 2009). In
particular, Mustard Seed Meal (MSM) is a byproduct of the com-
mercial mustard oil pressing process that contains glucosinolates
that can be enzymatically hydrolyzed to isothiocyanates, thiocya-
nate, nitriles, and other compounds; these biologically active
compounds are toxic to many weeds (Cai and Gu, 2016). In a
greenhouse study, mustard seed meal significantly decreased
redroot pigweed emergence and slightly reduced total yield of
onion, indicating MSM has potential to be used as a weed sup-
pressive amendment in an organic onion production system
(Boydston et al., 2011). A black walnut extract-based commercial
product (NatureCur®, Redox Chemicals, LLC, Burley, ID, USA)
completely inhibited growth of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and
hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) at a concentration of 33.3%,
showing potential as a pre- and post-emergent bioherbicide
(Shrestha, 2009). Pannacci et al. (2015a) showed as the aqueous
extract of aerial biomass of Artemisia vulgaris L. has greatly reduced
the germination of Lolium multiflorum's seeds when applied as a
pre-emergence bioherbicide, in the greenhouse and field experi-
ments. The same authors are observing as this bioherbicide can also
inhibit seeds germination of Amaranthus retroflexus L., without in-
hibition effects on seeds germination of field crops (i.e., wheat,
maize and rapeseed) and horticultural crops (i.e., tomato, onion,
carrot and lettuce). Further studies are in progress in order to
investigate the possibility to develop this bioherbicide as a bio-
logical weed control tool in field and greenhouse crops.
6. “Case studies”: some examples
Considering diversity and complexity of weed management in
minor crops, it might be useful to summarize direct non-chemical
weed control strategies in four “case studies” (two transplanted
crops and two sown crops) drawn and modified from Lichtenhahn
et al. (2005) (Figs. 7 and 8).
It could be noted as in all the four “case studies” the number of
treatments needs to be increased when the level of infestation in-
creases. Flex-tine harrow and flaming should be always applied in
pre-sowing or pre-transplant after a proper stale seedbed prepa-
ration. These two non-chemical methods may be also applied in
pre-emergence of those sown crops characterized by slow germi-
nation or deep sowing (i.e. onion, carrot, fennel, beans), with the
 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58 55

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).
56 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
caution to do preliminary tests in order to avoid damage to
emerging seedlings.
In transplanted crops at large inter-row distance, early treat-
ments with traditional hoe with rigid shanks or brush-weeder for
inter-row weed control, combined with finger-weeder for intra-
row weed control, seems to be the better weed control strategy,
especially for crops with high competitiveness (i.e. cabbages, some
medicinal plants). Ridging can be applied to control intra-row
weeds at advanced crop growth stage before inter-row closure
(Fig. 7). In transplanted crops with low competitiveness (i.e. onion,
lettuce), the above mentioned strategy needs to be supported to
precision hoeing (i.e. split-hoeing) and manual weeding in order to
increase weed control, avoiding appreciable yield losses (Fig. 7).
Sown crops characterized by reduced inter-row distance, lower
competitiveness, longer critical period and small seedlings in the
first part of growth cycle, should be managed with precision hoeing
(i.e. brush-weeder or split-hoeing) for inter-row weed control,
combined with finger-weeder and manual weeder for intra-row
weed control (Fig. 8). These treatments should be repeated dur-
ing all the critical period, according to infestation levels, inter-row
width and crop growth stage. In particular, in the leafy crops (i.e.
spinach, chicory, leaf beet, lettuce) manual weeding can be neces-
sary until the harvest in order to obtain an higher weed control and
absence of weeds in the harvest product (Fig. 8).
7. Conclusions
There are two important actions in non-chemical weed man-
agement of minor crops: 1) prevention encouraging crop plants to
compete against weeds; 2) weed control including the improve-
ment and technological development of weed control methods and
their proper use. However, these actions need to be supported by
research and extension, and European policies. In fact, research
could provide effective and sustainable strategies to non-chemical
weed management problems in minor crops; while consistent
funding (regional, national or European) should be delivered in this
regard. Furthermore, in the long term, weed problems in minor
crops need to be overcome by combining all available solutions and
adopting integrated non-chemical weed management strategies.
The adoption from farmers of specific strategies for non-
chemical weed control in each minor crop seems to be very diffi-
cult due to the peculiarities of each minor crops in terms of culti-
vation system, area, farmer's expertise, weed flora. Furthermore,
weed control solutions based on herbicides, despite can help
farmers, seem to be not sustainable for a long time, due to the
reduction of available herbicides provoked by stringent risk
assessment and subsequent authorization. Therefore, more effort is
needed for the development of non-chemical alternative methods
and tools as well as approaches which help farmers to communi-
cate and adopt integrated non-chemical weed management
strategies.
Future research should focus on the gaps existing for non-
chemical weed management in greenhouse and minor crops. In
particular, physical and mechanical weed control have a funda-
mental role in greenhouse and minor crops where chemical her-
bicides are few or not available. Innovation in mechanical weeding
has been impressive during the last few decades, but need to be
increased in order to develop and to adopt the precision farming
technologies for mechanical weed control. Innovative physical
methods (i.e., infrared, microwave, lasers, ultraviolet radiation,
electrocution and freezing) are not yet mature technologies in
weed science, but could be a very interesting field of research to
develop the cost-effective weed control tools especially for green-
house crops. Finally, the selection of cultivars with high competi-
tiveness nowadays is not a priority in the breeding programmes in
the greenhouse and minor crops but this seems to be a research
topic that needs to be further investigated due to its great potential
as a cultural method.
References
Ascard, J., 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different develop-
mental stages. Weed Res. 35, 397e411.
Ascard, J., Bellinder, R.M., 1996. Mechanical in-row cultivation in row crop. In:
Proceeding Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen,
Denmark, pp 1121e1126.
Ascard, J., Fogelberg, F., 2002. Mechanical intra-row weed control in organic onion
production. In: Proceedings 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical Weed Control,
Pisa, Italy, p 125. Available on-line at: http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.
pdf.
Ascard, J., Hatcher, P.E., Melander, B., Upadhyaya, M.K., 2007. Thermal weed control.
In: Upadhyaya, M.K., Re Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non-chemical Weed Manage-
ment e Principles, Concepts and Technology. CABI Press, Oxfordshire, UK,
pp. 155e175.
Balsari, P., Berruto, R., Ferrero, A., 1994. Flame weed control in lettuce crops. Acta
Hort. 372, 213e222.

rberi, P., Moonen, A.C., Peruzzi, A., Fontanelli, M., Raffaelli, M., 2009. Weed sup-
Ba
pression by soil steaming in combination with activating compounds. Weed
Res. 49, 55e66.
Bastiaans, L., Paolini, R., Baumann, D.T., 2008. Focus on ecological weed manage-
ment: what is hindering adoption? Weed Res. 48, 481e491.
Batlla, D., Benech-Arnold, R.L., 2007. Predicting changes in dormancy level in weed
seed soil banks: implications for weed management. Crop Prot. 26, 189e197.
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.
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.
Blossey, B., 2007. Biological control of weeds using arthropods. In: Upadhyaya, M.K.,
Re Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non-chemical Weed Management e Principles,
Concepts and Technology. CABI Press, Oxfordshire, UK, pp. 77e91.
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-
tainability forcropping systems in Mediterranean rainfed conditions. Eur. J.
Agron. 77, 146e155.
Bond, W., Grundy, A.C., 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming
systems. Weed Res. 41, 383e405.
Boydston, R., Hang, A., 1995. Rapeseed (Brassica napus) green manure crop sup-
presses weeds in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 9, 669e675.
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.
Boyette, C.D., Hoagland, R.E., Abbas, H.K., 2007. Evaluation of the bioherbicide
Myrothecium verrucaria for weed control in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum).
Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 17, 171e178.
Brainard, D.C., Bakker, J., Myers, N., Noyes, D.C., 2012. Rye living-mulch effects on
soil moisture and weeds in asparagus. HortSci 47, 58e63.
Brainard, D.C., Bellinder, R.R., 2004. Weed suppression in a broccoli-winter rye
intercropping system. Weed Sci. 52, 281e290.
Brown, S.L., Brown, J.E., 1992. Effect of plastic mulch color and insecticides on thrips
populations and damage to tomato. HortTechnol 2, 208e211.
Buhler, D.D., 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management.
Weed Sci. 50, 273e280.
Cai, X., Gu, M., 2016. Bioherbicides in organic horticulture. Horticulturae 2 (3), 10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae2020003.
Campiglia, E., Temperini, O., Mancinelli, R., Marucci, A., Saccardo, F., 1998. Soil so-
larization in the Mediterranean environment: effect on weed control and yield
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-
ization on the weed control of vegetable crops and on cauliflower and fennel
production in the open air. Acta Hort. 533, 249e255.
Campiglia, E., Mancinelli, R., Radicetti, E., Caporali, F., 2010. Effect of cover crops and
mulches on weed control and nitrogen fertilization in tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.). Crop Prot. 29, 354e363.
Candido, V., D’addabbo, T., Miccolis, V., Castronuovo, D., 2011. Weed control and
yield response of soil solarization with different plastic films in lettuce. Sci.
Hort. 130, 491e497.
Charudattan, R., 2001. Biological control of weeds by means of plant pathogens:
significance for integrated weed management in modern agro-ecology.
BioControl 46, 229e260.
Chase, C.A., Sinclair, T.R., Chellemi, D.O., Olson, S.M., Gilreath, J.P., Locascio, S.J., 1999.
Heat-retentive films for increasing soil temperatures during solarization in a
humid, cloudy environment. HortSci 34, 1085e1089.
Chatizwa, I., 1997. Mechanical weed control: the case of hand weeders. In: Pro-
ceedings 1997 Brighton Crop Protection Conference e Weeds, Brighton, UK, pp
203e208.
Chauhan, B.S., 2012. Weed ecology and weed management strategies for dryseeded
rice in Asia. Weed Techn 26, 1e13.
 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
Chauhan, B.S., Johnson, D.E., 2009. Influence of tillage systems on weed seedling
emergence pattern in rainfed rice. Soil Till. Res. 106, 15e21.
Chauhan, B.S., Gill, G., Preston, C., 2006. Seedling recruitment pattern and depth of
recruitment of 10 weed species in minimum tillage and no-till seeding systems.
Weed Sci. 54, 658e668.
Chauhan, B.S., Singh, R.G., Mahajan, G., 2012. Ecology and management of weeds
under conservation agriculture: a review. Crop Prot. 38, 57e65.
Cirujeda, A., Anzalone, A., Aibar, J., Moreno, M.M., Zaragoza, C., 2012. Purple
nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) control with paper mulch in processing tomato.
Crop Prot. 39, 66e71.
Cordeau, S., Marion Triolet, M., Wayman, S., Steinberg, C., Guillemin, J.-P., 2016.
Bioherbicides: dead in the water? A review of the existing products for inte-
grated weed management. Crop Prot. 87, 44e49.
Covarelli, L., Pannacci, E., Beccari, G., D'Errico, F.P., Tosi, L., 2010. Two-year in-
vestigations on the integrated control of weeds and root parasites in Virginia
bright tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) in central Italy. Crop Prot. 29, 783e788.
Demir, H., Polat, E., 2011. Effects of broccoli-crispy salad intercropping on yield and
quality under greenhouse conditions. Afr. J. Agr. Res. 6, 4116e4121.
Den Hollander, N.G., Bastiaans, L., Kropff, M.J., 2007. Clover as a cover crop for weed
suppression in an intercropping design II. Competitive ability of several clover
species. Eur. J. Agron. 26, 104e112.
Efthimiadou, A.P., Karkanis, A.C., Bilalis, D.J., Efthimiadis, P., 2009. Review: the
phenomenon of crop-weed competition; a problem or a key for sustainable
weed management? Journal of Food. Agric. Environ. 7 (2), 861e868.
Eyre, M.D., Critchley, C.N.R., Leifert, C., Wilcockson, S.J., 2011. Crop sequence, crop
protection and fertility management effects on weed cover in an organic/con-
ventional farm management trial. Eur. J. Agron. 34, 153e162.
European Commission, 2011. SANCO Document 7525/VI/95-rev.9. https://www.
nutfruit.org/wp-continguts/uploads/law-regulations/48013.pdf.
European Commission, 2014. Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on the Establishment of a European Fund for Minor
Uses in the Field of Plant Protection Product, p. 15. http://ec.europa.eu/food/
plant/pesticides/legislation/docs/com_2014_82_en.pdf.
Fennimore, S.A., Smith, R.F., Tourte, L., LeStrange, M., Rachuy, J.S., 2014. Evaluation
and economics of a rotating cultivator in Bok Choy, celery, lettuce, and Radic-
chio. Weed Technol. 28, 176e188.
Ferrero, A., Casini, P., 2001. Mezzi fisici. In: Malerbologia (Catizone P. e Zanin G.,
coord.). P

atron Editore, Bologna, Italy, pp. 263e278.
Fogelberg, F., Dock Gustavsson, A.M., 1998. Resistance against uprooting in carrots
(Daucus carota) and annual weeds: a basis for selective mechanical weed
control. Weed Res. 38, 183e190.
Fogelberg, F., Dock Gustavsson, A.M., 1999. Mechanical damage to annual weeds
and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Res. 39, 469e479.
Gill, H.K., McSorley, R., Treadwell, D.D., 2009. Comparative performance of different
plastic films for soil solarization and weed suppression. HortTechnol 19,
769e774.
Grassbaugh, E.M., Regnier, E.E., Bennett, M.A., 2004. Comparison of organic and
inorganic mulches for heirloom tomato production. Acta Hort. 638, 171e176.
Graziani, F., Onofri, A., Pannacci, E., Tei, F., Guiducci, M., 2012. Size and composition
of weed seedbank in long-term organic and conventional low-input cropping
systems. Eur. J. Agron. 39, 52e61.
Graziani, F., Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., 2007. Effetti di una prolungata omo-
successione di frumento tenero e di due diverse tecniche di lavorazione del
terreno sulla banca dei semi delle piante infestanti. In: Proceedings XXXVII
Convegno SIA, “Il Contributo della Ricerca Agronomica all’Innovazione dei
Sistemi Colturali Mediterranei” S.L. Casentino, R. Tuttobene Ed., 13-14 Settem-
bre, Catania, Italy, pp 285e286.
Graziani, F., Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., 2008a. Weed population dynamics in maize
crop characterized by high and low weed density. Ital. J. Agron. 3 (3), 375e376.
Graziani, F., Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., Tei, F., 2008b. Post-dispersal weed seed
predation of Amaranthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album and Echinochloa
crus-galli in maize (Zea mays L.). In: Proceedings 5th International Weed Sci-
ence Congress, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 23-27, 2008, 297.
Available online at: www.iwss.info/download/iwsc-2008-abstracts.pdf.
Guvenc, I., Yildirim, E., 2005. Intercropping with eggplant for proper utilisation of
interspace under greenhouse conditions. Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 70, 300e302.
Hershenhorn, J., Casella, F., Vurro, M., 2016. Weed biocontrol with fungi: past,
present and future. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 26 (10), 1313e1328.
Hosseini, P., Karimi, H., Babaei, S., Mashhadi, H.R., Oveisi, M., 2014. Weed seed bank
as affected by crop rotation and disturbance. Crop Prot. 64, 1e6.
Isik, D., Kaya, E., Ngouajio, M., Mennan, H., 2009. Weed suppression in organic
pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with winter cover crops. Crop Prot. 28, 356e363.
Jabran, K., Mahajan, G., Sardana, V., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Allelopathy for weed
control in agricultural systems. Crop Prot. 72, 57e65.
Kruidhof, H.M., Gallandt, E.R., Haramotot, E.R., Bastiaans, L., 2011. Selective weed
suppression by cover crop residues: effects of seed mass and timing of species'
sensitivity. Weed Res. 51, 177e186.
Kurstjens, D., Bleeker, P., 2000. Optimising torsion weeders and finger weeders. In:
Proceedings 4th EWRS Workshop on Physical Weed Control. Elspeet, The
Netherlands, pp. 30e32.
Lamichhane, J.R., Arendse, W., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Kudsk, P., Roman, J.C., van
Bijsterveldt-Gels, J.E.M., Wick, M., Messe an, A., 2015. Challenges and opportu-
nities for integrated pest management in Europe: a telling example of minor
uses. Crop Prot. 74, 42e47.
Liebman, M., Dyck, E., 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed
57
management. Ecol. Appl. 3, 92e122.
Lichtenhahn, M., Koller, M., Dierauer, H., Baumann, D., 2005. Weed control in
Organic Vegetable Cultivation. Available at:. Research Institute of Organic
Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland, p. 12 http://www.organicagcentre.ca/
Docs/FiBL_WeedCtrl_Vegetables.pdf.
Lombardo, S., Longo, A.M.G., Lo Monaco, A., Mauromicale, G., 2012. The effect of soil
solarization and fumigation on pests and yields in greenhouse tomatoes. Crop
Prot. 37, 59e64.
Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B.S., 2011. Effects of planting pattern and cultivar on weed
and crop growth in aerobic rice system. Weed Tech. 25, 521e525.
Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B.S., 2013. The role of cultivars in managing weeds in dry-
seeded rice production systems. Crop Prot. 49, 52e57.
Melander, B., B
arberi, P., 2004. Physical and cultural weed control in minor crops.
In: 4th International Weed Science Congress, Durban, 20e24 June 2004.
Available on line at: http://orgprints.org/4603/1/4603.pdf.
Melander, B., Elsgaard, L., Jørgersen, M.H., 2004. Band-steaming Reduces Laborious
Hand-weeding in Vegetables. September 2004, N. 3. Available on line at:.
Newsletter from Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming http://www.
darcof.dk/enews/sep04/steam.html.
Melander, B., Holst, N., Rasmussen, I.A., Hansen, P.K., 2012. Direct control of
perennial weeds between crops e Implications for organic farming. Crop Prot.
40, 36e42.
Melander, B., Lattanzi, B., Pannacci, E., 2015. Intelligent versus non-intelligent me-
chanical intra-row weed control in transplanted onion and cabbage. Crop Prot.
72, 1e8.
Melander, B., Rasmussen, G., 2001. Effect of cultural methods and physical weed
control on intrarow weed numbers, manual weeding and marketable yield in
direct-sown leek and bulb onion. Weed Res. 41, 491e508.
Melander, B., Rasmussen, I.A., Ba
rberi, P., 2005. Integrating physical and cultural
methods of weed control - examples from European research. Weed Sci. 53,
369e381.
Melander, E., Jørgensen, M.H., 2005. Soil steaming to reduce intrarow weed seedling
emergence. Weed Res. 45, 202e211.
Mohler, C.L., Johnson, S.E., 2009. Crop Rotation on Organic Farms: a Planning
Manual. Available online at:. Published by Natural Resource, Agriculture, and
Engineering Service (NRAES), p. 156 http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/
Books/Crop-Rotation-on-Organic-Farms.
Müller-Scha €rer, H., Potter, C.A., 1991. Cover plants in field grown vegetables: pros-
pects and limitations. In: Proceedings Brighton Crop Conference e Weeds,
Brighton, UK, pp 599e604.
Neal, J., 2015. Greenhouse Weed Control - Horticulture Information Leaflet. NC
Cooperative Extension Resources. Available on line at:. NC State University
https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/greenhouse-weed-control.
Ngouajio, M., Mcgiffen, M.E., Hutchinson, C.M., 2003. Effect of cover crop and
management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Prot. 22, 57e64.
Nichols, V., Verhulst, N., Cox, R., Govaerts, B., 2015. Weed dynamics and conserva-
tion agriculture principles: a review. Field Crops Res. 183, 56e68.
Norris, R.F., Elmore, C.L., Rejmanek, M., Akey, W.C., 2001. Spatial arrangement,
density, and competition between barnyardgrass and tomato: I. Crop growth
and yield. Weed Sci. 49, 61e68.
Pannacci, E., Covarelli, G., 2005. Mechanical weed control in sunflower. In: Pro-
ceedings 13th EWRS Symposium, 19e23 June 2005. CD, Bari, Italy.
Pannacci, E., Graziani, F., Guiducci, M., Tei, F., 2008. Controllo meccanico delle
malerbe in colture da seme di cipolla. In: Proceedings of Research Project
“Azioni di innovazione e ricerca a supporto del piano sementiero. PRIS2 Pro-
getto di ricerca interregionale, Programma “Sviluppo Rurale” e Sottoprog-
ramma “Innovazione e Ricerca, pp. 265e275.
Pannacci, E., Guiducci, M., Tei, F., 2007. Mechanical weed control in organic onion
seed production. In: Proceedings 7th Workshop of the EWRS Working Group:
Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), Ger-
many, 11-14 March, pp 119e120. Available on-line at: http://www.ewrs.org/
pwc/doc/2007_Salem.pdf.
Pannacci, E., Pettorossi, D., Tei, F., 2013. Phytotoxic effects and soil bioavailability of
aqueous extracts of sunflower on seed germination and growth of Sinapis alba
L., Triticum aestivum L. and Lolium multiflorum Lam. Allelopathy J. 32 (1), 23e36.
Pannacci, E., Tei, F., 2014. Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on weed
control, weed seed rain and crop yield in maize, sunflower and soyabean. Crop
Prot. 64, 51e59.
Pannacci, E., Tei, F., 2015. Gestione delle malerbe nelle colture minori con mezzi non
chimici. In: Proceedings of the XX Convegno della Societ
a Italiana per la Ricerca
sulla Flora Infestante, Lodi, Italy, 27 October 2015, pp.163e194.
Pannacci, E., Pettorossi, D., Regni, L., Tei, F., 2015a. Allelopathic potential of mugwort
(Artemisia vulgaris L.) to control the Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) in
winter wheat. Allelopathy J. 36 (2), 257e272.
Pannacci, E., Graziani, F., Tei, F., 2015b. Seed Filter Extractor: a new instrument for
the evaluation of weed seedbank. Soil Till. Res. 150, 78e82.
Pannacci, E., Aibar, J., Cirujeda, A., Dobrzan  ski, A., Pardo, G., Portugal, J., Tei, F., 2015c.
Weeds and weed management in peppers. In: Proceedings 17th International
Symposium of European Weed Research Society “Weed Management in
Changing Environments”, Montpellier, France, 23-26 July 2015, 225.
Pannacci, E., Tei, F., Guiducci, M., 2016. Mechanical weed control in organic winter
wheat. In: Proceedings XLV Congress of Italian Society for Agronomy, Sassari,
Italy, 20-22 September 2016, pp 115e116. Available online at: http://www.siagr.
it/index.php/it/2013-02-05-10-10-45/atti-convegni-sia.
Paolini, R., Faustini, F., Saccardo, F., Crino
, P., 2006. Competitive interactions
58 E. Pannacci et al. / Crop Protection 96 (2017) 44e58
between chick-pea genotypes and weeds. Weed Res. 46, 335e344.
Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Di Ciolo, S.,
Verna, P., Casaccia, D., Recinelli, E., 2005. La gestione fisica delle infestanti su
carota biologica e su altre colture tipiche dell’altopiano del Fucino (a cura di
Peruzzi A). Stamperia Editoriale Pisana, Agnano Pisano, Italy, p. 143.
Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Mazzoncini, M., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Di Ciolo, S.,
Fantoni, E., Costa, I., Di Colo, M., Boschetti, I., 2006. Il controllo fisico delle
infestanti su spinacio in coltivazione biologica ed integrata nella bassa Valle del
Serchio (a cura di Peruzzi A). Stamperia Editoriale Pisana, Agnano Pisano, Italy,
p. 111.
Peruzzi, A., Lulli, L., Raffaelli, M., Del Sarto, R., Frasconi, C., Ginanni, M.,
Fontanelli, M., 2009. In: Peruzzi, A. (Ed.), La Gestione Fisica Della Flora Spon-
tanea in Area Urbana. Felici Editore, Pisa.
Pouryousef, M., Yousefi, A.R., Oveisi, M., Asadi, F., 2015. Intercropping of fenugreek
as living mulch at different densities for weed suppression in coriander. Crop
Prot. 69, 60e64.
Radicetti, E., Mancinelli, R., Campiglia, E., 2012. Combined effect of genotype and
inter-row tillage on yield and weed control of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in a
rainfed Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Res. 127, 161e169.
Radics, L., Bogn ar, E.S., 2004. Comparison of different mulching methods for weed
control in organic green bean and tomato. Acta Hort. 638, 189e196.
Raffaelli, M., Ba
rberi, P., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., 2002a. Options for mechanical
weed control in grain maize e effects on weeds. In: Proceedings 5th EWRS
Workshop on Physical Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, pp 147e152. Available on-line
at: http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.pdf.
Raffaelli, M., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., Di Ciolo, S., 2002b. Mechanical weed control in
sunflower and soyabean crops using spring-tine harrow: results of two-year
trials. Agric. Mediterr. 132, 112e121.

rberi, P., Peruzzi, A., Ginanni, M., 2005. Mechanical weed control in
Raffaelli, M., Ba
maize: evaluation of weed harrowing and hoeing systems. Agric. Mediterr. 135,
33e43.
Raffaelli, M., Filippi, F., Peruzzi, A., Graifenberg, A., 2004. Flaming for intra-row
weed control in globe artichoke. In: Proceeding 6th EWRS Workshop on
Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway, 8-10 March, pp
166e169.
Rasmussen, J., 1996. Mechanical weed management. In: Proceedings Second In-
ternational Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 943e948.
Rasmussen, J., Henriksen, C.B., Griepentrog, H.W., Nielsen, J., 2011. Punch planting,
flame weeding and delayed sowing to reduce intra-row weeds in row crops.
Weed Res. 51, 489e498.
Rubiales, D., Verkleij, J., Vurro, M., Murdoch, A.J., Joel, D.M., 2009. Parasitic plant
management in sustainable agriculture. Weed Res. 49 (Suppl. 1), 1e5.
Runham, S.R., Town, S.J., 1995. An economic assessment of mulches in field scale
vegetable crops. In: Proceedings 1995 Brighton Crop Protection Conference e
Weeds, Brighton, UK, pp 925e930.
Sanchez, E., Lamont Jr., W.J., Orzolele, M.D., 2008. Newspaper mulches for sup-
pressing weeds for organic high-tunnel cucumber production. HortTechnol 18,
154e157.
Santos, B.M., Dusky, J.A., Stall, W.M., Bewich, T.A., Shilling, D.G., 2004a. Mechanisms
of interference of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common
purslane (Portulaca oleracea) on lettuce as influenced by phosphorus fertility.
Weed Sci. 52, 78e82.
Santos, B.M., Dusky, J.A., Stall, W.M., Bewich, T.A., Shilling, D.G., 2004b. Influence of
method of phosphorus application on smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus)
and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) interference in lettuce. Weed Sci. 52,
797e801.
Shrestha, A., 2009. Potential of a black walnut (Juglans nigra) extract product
(NatureCur) as a pre- and post-emergence bioherbicide. J. Sustain. Agric. 33,
810e822.
Singh, M., Bhullar, M.S., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Seed bank dynamics and emergence
pattern of weeds as affected by tillage systems in dry direct-seeded rice. Crop
Prot. 67, 168e177.
Sivesind, E.C., Leblanc, M.L., Cloutier, D.C., Seguin, P., Stewart, K.A., 2012. Impact of
selective flame weeding on onion yield, pungency, flavonoid concentration, and
weeds. Crop Prot. 39, 45e51.
Slaughter, D.C., Giles, D.K., Downey, D., 2008. Autonomous robotic weed control
systems: a review. Comp. Electron. Agric. 61, 63e78.
Snyder, A., Morra, M.J., Johnson-Maynard, J., Thill, D.C., 2009. Seed meals from
brassicaceae oilseed crops as soil amendments: influence on carrot growth,
microbial biomass nitrogen, and nitrogen mineralization. HortScience 44,
354e361.
Teasdale, J.R., Mohler, C.L., 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed
emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci. 48, 385e392.
Tei, F., Ascard, J., Baumann, D.T., Caussanel, J.P., Dobrzanski, A., Froud-Williams, R.J.,
Kleifeld, Y., Pardo Iglesias, A., Rocha, F., Ruuttunen, P., Rzozi, R.S., Sanseovic, T.,
Suso, L., 1999. Weeds and weed management in onion - a review. In: Pro-
ceedings 11th EWRS Symposium, Basel, Switzerland, 131.
Tei, F., Baumann, D.T., Bleeker, P., Dobrzanski, A., Economou, G., Fogelberg, F., Froud-
Williams, R.J., Hoek, H., Melander, B., Rocha, F., Ruuttunen, P., Rzozi, S.B., San-
seovic, T., Simoncic, A., Torma, M., Uygur, F.N., van der Weide, R., Verschwele, A.,
Villeneuve, F., Zaragoza, C., 2002a. Weeds and weed management in carrots - a
review. In: Proceedings 12th EWRS Symposium, Wageningen, The Netherlands,
24-27 June 2002, pp14e15.
Tei, F., Stagnari, F., Granier, A., 2002b. Preliminary on physical weed control in
processing spinach. In Proceedings 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cul-
tural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, 11e13 March, pp164-171. Available on-line at:
http://www.ewrs.org/pwc/doc/2002_Pisa.pdf.
Tei, F., Cirujeda, A., Dobrzan  ski, A., et al., 2007. Weeds and weed management in
lettuce. In: Proceedings 14th International Symposium of European Weed
Research Society, 17e21 June 2007, Hamar, Norway, p 71.
Tei, F., Montemurro, P., Baumann, D.T., Dobrzanski, A., Giovinazzo, R., Kleifeld, Y.,
Rocha, F., Rzozi, R.S., Sanseovic, T., Zaragoza, C., 2003. Weeds and weed man-
agement in processing tomato. ActaHort 613, 111e121.
Tei, F., Pannacci, E., 2005. La gestione integrata della flora infestante nelle colture
orticole. Rev. n. 2 e Italus Hortus 12 (4), 45e62.
Tei, F., Pannacci, E., 2008. Integrated weed management systems in vegetables:
current status and perspectives. In: Proceedings 5th International Weed Science
Congress, June 23e27, 2008,Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 326e327.
Available online at: www.iwss.info/download/iwsc-2008-abstracts.pdf.
Tei, F., Pannacci, E., Cirujeda, A., et al., 2005. Weeds and weed management in
cabbages e a review. In: Proceedings 13th EWRS Symposium, 20e23 June 2005,
Bari, Italy.
Tillett, N.D., Hague, T., Grundy, A.C., Dedousis, A.P., 2008. Mechanical within-row
weed control for transplanted crops using computer vision. Biosyst. Eng. 99,
171e178.
Tittarelli, F., Campanelli, G., Farina, R., Napoli, R., Ciaccia, C., Testani, E., Leteo, F.,
Canali, S., 2014. Effect of cover crop management and compost application on
soil N fertility of organic melon. In: Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific
Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’ Organic World Congress 2014, Rahmann
G & Aksoy U (Eds.), 13-15 October, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 709e712. Available on
line at: http://orgprints.org/23596/1/23596_Tittarelli_MM.pdf.
Turner, R.J., Davies, G., Moore, H., Grundy, A.C., Mead, A., 2007. Organic weed
management: a review of the current UK farmer perspective. Crop Prot. 26,
377e382.
Ugen, M.A., Wien, H.C., Wortmann, C.S., 2002. Dry bean competitiveness with
annual weeds as affected by soil nutrient availability. Weed Sci. 50, 530e535.
Uludag, A., Bohren, C., Bulcke, R., et al., 2003. A review of weed control management
in green peas. Veg. Crops Res. Bul. 59, 5e16.
Upadhyaya, M.K., Blackshaw, R.E., 2007. Non-chemical weed management: synop-
sis, integration and the future. In: Upadhyaya, M.K., Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non-
chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. CABI,
Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 201e209.
Van der Schans, D., Bleeker, P., Molendijk, L., Lotz, L.A.P., Bauermeister, R., Total, R.,
Baumann, D.T., 2006. Practical Weed Control in Arable Farming and Outdoor
Vegetable Cultivation without Chemicals. PPO publication 532. Applied Plant
Research, Wageningen University, Lelystad, The Netherlands, p. 77.
Van der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., et al., 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed
control in crop rows. Weed Res. 48, 215e224.
Vidotto, F., De Palo, F., Ferrero, A., 2013. Effect of short-duration high temperatures
on weed seed germination: high temperatures affecting weed seeds. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 163, 454e465.
Wang, F.X., Feng, S.Y., Hou, X.Y., Kang, S.Z., Han, J.J., 2009. Potato growth with and
without plasticmulch in two typical regions of Northern China. Field Crops Res.
110, 123e129.
Weerarathne, L.V.Y., Marambe, B., Chauhan, B.S., 2016. Intercropping as an effective
component of integrated weed management in tropical root and tuber crops: a
review. Available online 23 September 2016 Crop Prot. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cropro.2016.08.028.
Yildirim, E., Guvenc, I., 2005. Intercropping based on cauliflower: more productive,
profitable and highly sustainable. Eur. J. Agron. 22, 11e18.