Creat membership Creat membership
Sign in

Forgot password?

Confirm
  • Forgot password?
    Sign Up
  • Confirm
    Sign In
Creat membership Creat membership
Sign in

Forgot password?

Confirm
  • Forgot password?
    Sign Up
  • Confirm
    Sign In
Collection
For ¥0.57 per day, unlimited downloads CREATE MEMBERSHIP Download

toTop

If you have any feedback, Please follow the official account to submit feedback.

Turn on your phone and scan

home > search >

Design and testing of an intra-row mechanical weeding machine for corn

Author:
C. Cordill   T.E. Grift  


Journal:
Biosystems Engineering


Issue Date:
2011


Abstract(summary):

As an alternative to chemical weed control, mechanical weed control between crop rows can be achieved using standard tools such as field cultivators. This paper addresses the related problem of achieving mechanical intra-row weed control in maize. The object was to non-specifically remove weed plants within the row by enabling dual tine carriers to engage the soil whilst circumventing the maize stalks. The maize stalks were distinguished from the weeds and maize leaves by utilising 1) the typical vertical quasi-cylindrical stalk of the maize plant, 2) the limited range of maize stalk diameters, and 3) by assuming constant plant spacing.To assess the performance of the machine, a video was taken during field plot experiments. This allowed determination of the number of plants that were "fatally damaged" after inadvertently being pushed over by the implement. This was assumed to cause the plant to die, or "minimally damaged" where the implement merely touched the plant, when the plant was assumed to survive. Experiments were carried out using three arrangements being 1) three rows without weeds, 2) three rows with broadleaf weeds (simulated by planting soybean) and 3) three rows with grassy weeds. The percentage of plants that were fatally damaged was 8.8%, 23.7%, and 23.7% in cases 1, 2, 3 respectively. In addition, the percentage of plants that were minimally damaged was 17.6%, 20%, and 25.9% in cases 1, 2,3 respectively. (C) 2011 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Page:
247-252


VIEW PDF

The preview is over

If you wish to continue, please create your membership or download this.

Create Membership

Similar Literature

Submit Feedback

This function is a member function, members do not limit the number of downloads