Weed management is a significant challenge that must be addressed both globally and in Australia, where traditional methods of control have become limited. The avoidance of mechanical practices has resulted in reduced erosion but has also led to an increased reliance on chemicals and a subsequent increase in rates of herbicide resistance. To address this challenge, alternative forms of weed management, such as electric weed control (electro-weeding), need to be considered. Electric weed control functions by transferring electrical current through the target plant following electrode contact, causing the plant’s cells to burst and either killing the plant or suppressing its growth. However, a multitude of variables, such as electrical power and speed of application, weed morphology, and site-specific environmental conditions, can impact the use of electric weed control and its efficacy. While electric weed control holds promise, and despite its recent global popularity with numerous companies producing machinery, the applicability, efficacy, and risks of using electric weed control internationally and in Australia have yet to be thoroughly analyzed. Given the existing knowledge gaps, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the theory and recent advances in electric weed control. Additionally, the review discusses the potential for resistance development and safety risks associated with electric weed control and presents an overview of modern machines and their application in various settings. It also highlights the need for further research to determine the applicability and efficacy of implementing this new weed control method before widespread adoption and integration into pest management strategies.

Organic growers need additional tools for weed control. A new technique using abrasive grit propelled by compressed air was tested in field plots. Grit derived from corncobs was directed at seedlings of summer annual weeds growing at the bases of corn plants when the corn was at differing early stages of leaf development. Season-long, in-row weed control exceeded 90% when two or three abrasion events were coupled with between-row cultivation. Timing of weed abrasion was critical, with highest levels of control corresponding to the one- and five-leaf stages or the one-, three-, and five-leaf stages of corn development. Corn yields associated with these treatments were equivalent to those of hand-weeded controls in which no abrasive grit was applied. Thus, air-propelled abrasive grit applications at the one-, three-, and five-leaf stages of corn controlled weeds sufficiently to prevent weed-induced reductions in corn grain. Additionally, these applications were not harmful to corn plants. This new concept for weed control may be of interest to organic crop managers.

New tools for controlling weeds would be useful for soybean production in organic systems. Air-propelled abrasive grit is one such tool that performs well for in-row weed control in corn, but crop safety in soybean is unknown. Responses to abrasion by corn-cob grit of soybean seedlings were examined at VE, VC, VU, V1, V2 (emergence, cotyledon, unifoliate, first trifoliate, and second trifoliate, respectively) and combinations of these growth stages, in both greenhouse and field settings. Seedling leaf areas and dry weights in greenhouse experiments were reduced by treatments that included abrasion at VC, with the primary effect expressed through reductions in the size of the unifoliate leaf. In the field, soybean stand also was reduced by grit applications at VC, especially if followed by a second application at VU or V1. However, soybean yield was not reduced by grit applied at any soybean stage of growth. End-of-season weed dry weights did not differ from hand-weeded checks, and weeds did not impact soybean yields. Thus, abrasive grit for in-row weed control can be applied at least twice at VE through V2 growth stages without lowering soybean yield, but applications at VC probably should be avoided.