Five cultivation implements (two flex-tine cultivators, brush hoe, and rolling and shovel cultivators) were evaluated for weed control and effect on broccoli, snap bean, and sweet corn yield. Each implement was used alone or in combination with flex-tine cultivators. Standard broadcast herbicide treatments were: broccoli, metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha posttransplant; snap bean, metolachlor preemergence (PRE) at 2.3 kg ai/ha followed by fomesafen postemergence (POST) at 0.4 kg ai/ha; sweet corn, atrazine at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE. In the snap bean trials, an additional treatment consisted of metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE applied in a 25-cm band over the crop row followed by fomesafen POST at 0.4 kg ai/ha directed at the crop row, with a subsequent shovel cultivation. In the sweet corn trials, all cultivation treatments received an application of atrazine at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE in a 25-cm band over the crop row. In broccoli, weed control and yields with all cultivation treatments were comparable to those with broadcast herbicide. In snap bean, flex-tine cultivators failed to control weeds and prevent yield reductions compared to the broadcast herbicide treatment. When either the brush hoe or the shovel cultivator was preceded by flex-tine cultivation, weed control and snap bean yield were comparable to those with broadcast herbicides. Banded herbicides followed by shovel cultivation also controlled weeds and prevented yield reductions. In sweet corn, banded herbicides controlled in-row weeds, and despite variable between-row weed control, all cultivation treatments yielded as well as the broadcast herbicide treatment. Relative performance of the cultivators was influenced by soil type and rainfall as well as crop canopy characteristics.

Cultivation is a proven means of weed control in organic peanut. However, weeds present in-row often escape control. Research trials were conducted in Ty Ty, GA to modify cultural practices to help suppress weed emergence in-row. Modified cultural practices were three row pattern/seeding rate combinations; twin rows (four rows on a seedbed) seeded at the recommended (1X) seeding rate that produced 13 seed m−1 in each row, twin rows seeded at the 2X seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1 in each row, and wide rows (two rows on seedbed) seeded at the recommended seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1. Four cultivation regimes were evaluated; cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 6 wk, cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 8 wk, scouring with a brush hoe at vegetative emergence followed by the tine weeder for 6 wk, and a noncultivated control. There were no interactions between row pattern/seeding rates and cultivation regimes for any parameter measured. There was inconsistent response of weed control and peanut yield to row pattern/seeding rates. Weed control and peanut yields were similar with tine weeding for 6 wk, 8 wk, or with the brush hoe followed by the tine weeder. Weed management in organic peanut was not improved by altering peanut cultural practices that facilitate quicker canopy closure, and the use of narrow row patterns should not be based on attempts to improve weed control in organic peanut. Narrow row patterns provide other benefits to organic peanut production and those attributes should influence decisions on the choice of row pattern, not weed control.

Weed control in organic peanut production is difficult and costly. Sweep cultivation in the row middles is effective, but weeds remain in the crop row, causing yield loss. Research trials were conducted in Ty Ty, GA to evaluate implements and frequencies of cultivation to improve in-row weed control in organic peanut. Implements were a tine weeder and power takeoff-powered brush hoe that targeted weeds present in the row. Frequencies of cultivation were at vegetative emergence of peanut (VE), 1 wk after VE (1wk), 2 wk after VE (2wk), sequential combinations of VE/1wk, VE/2wk, and VE/1wk/2wk. All plots were cultivated with a sweep cultivator to control weeds in row middles. The tine weeder tended to be easier to operate and performed more consistently than the brush hoe. Both implements performed best when initial cultivation was at VE. Delaying the initial cultivation reduced overall effectiveness. Plots with the best in-row weed control were hand-weeded once to control escapes and harvested for peanut yield. The best overall combination of weed control, minimal use of salvage hand-weeding, and maximum peanut yield resulted from sequential cultivation at VE/1wk using either the tine weeder or brush hoe, row middle sweep cultivation, and preharvest mowing.

Open-air crops are important in Spanish horticulture. The limited number of herbicide active ingredients in minor crops, the waste problem of polyethylene (PE) plastic mulch and the high prices of biodegradable plastics leave hand-weeding and mechanical weed control as the most viable weed control methods. Different tools have been tested in northern European countries but their performance remains unknown in the edaphoclimatic situation of southern Europe. The objective of this work was to test novel physical weed control methods on processing tomato in northeastern Spain compared with other effective control methods, i.e., plastic and paper mulches. A first sequence of field trials was established from 2005 to 2008 at Zaragoza (Spain) to select the best physical control methods out of flamer, torsion weeder, finger weeder, flex-tine harrow and brush hoe used alone or in combination. The best method was the brush hoe which was then compared from 2009 to 2011 with PE mulch, biodegradable plastic mulch and paper mulch. Flamer, flex-tine harrow, torsion weeder and finger weeder performed quite irregularly due to crusty soil conditions and needed additional tools or repeated treatments to increase weed control efficacy. The brush hoe performed best in this soil situation working at about 5 cm depth. Weed biomass reduction was higher than 80% in 6 out of 7 years and similar yield was obtained in the brushed plots compared to the yield obtained with PE, biodegradable plastic and paper mulch. The brush hoe is thus a suitable option for weed control in processing tomato while the other tools were too weak to control aggressive summer weeds in the tested conditions.