Evaluating the Performance of Rotary and Tine Inter-Row Cultivators at Different Working Speeds

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
S. Gursoy 1
C. Ozaslan 2
1 Department of Agricultural Machinery and Technology Engineering, Dicle University, 21280 Diyarbakir, Turkey.
2 Plant Protection Department, Dicle University, 21280 Diyarbakır, Turkey.
Abstract
An effective inter-row cultivator must destroy the weeds in the inter-row close to crop area without damaging the plants on the rows. Therefore, it is important to understand the soil disturbance of inter-row cultivation tools for optimizing the design and the use of inter-row cultivators. In this study, the performance of two different inter-row cultivators (the rotary inter-row cultivator and the tine inter-row cultivator) was investigated at three different working speeds (3.52, 6.11 and 7.82 km h-1) and at a working depth of 70 mm under corn planted field conditions. The performance indicators of inter-row cultivators included the soil burial Depth on crop (D), the unaffected strip Width around crop row (W), the Weeding efficiency (We), and the Damaged Plant ratio (DP). The results of the study indicated that the rotary inter-row cultivator could be operated at 6.11 km h-1 due to acceptable soil movement and low crop damage. However, the tine inter-row cultivator resulted in unacceptable soil movement and crop damage at 6.11 and 7.82 km h-1 working speeds.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Amonov, M.O., Pulatov, A.S. and Colvin, T.S. 2006. Machine innovation for inter row cotton cultivation in Uzbekistan. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 22(5): 665-674.
2. Ascard, J. and Fogelberg, F. 2008. Mechanical in-row weed control in transplanted and direct-sown bulb onions. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 25: 235 251.
3. Baerveldt, S. and Ascard, J. 1999. Effect of soil cover on weeds. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 17: 101-111.
4. Cavers, P.B. and Kane, M. 1990. Responses of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) seedlings to mechanical damage and/or drought treatments. Weed Technology, 4: 425--432.
5. Cirujeda, A., Melander, B., Rasmussen, K. and Rasmussen, I.A. 2003. Relationship between speed, soil movement into the cereal row and intra-row weed control efficacy by weed harrowing. Weed Research, 43: 285–296.
6. Cloutier, D.C., van der Weide, R.Y., Peruzzi, A. and Leblanc, M.L. 2007. Mechanical weed control. In: Upadhyaya, M.K. and Blackshaw, R.E. (Eds.), Non Chemical Weed Management. Principles, Concepts and Technology CAB International, UK, pp. 111-134.
7. Dowell, F.E., Siemens, J.C. and Bode, L.E. 1988. Cultivator speed and sweep spacing effects on herbicide incorporation. Transactions of the ASAE, 31(5): 1315-1321.
8. Gupta, M.L., George, D.L. and Norton, L. 2008. Precision guided mechanical weed control. Proceedings of the 16th Australian Weeds Conference, Brisbane.
9. Gürsoy, S. and Chen, Y., 2017. Evaluation of inter-row sweeps with different working widths. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 33(3): 307-312.
10. Hanna, H.M., Erbach, D.C., Marley, S.J. and, Melvin, S.W. 1993. Comparison of the Goryachkin theory to soil flow on a sweep. Transactions of the ASAE, 36 (2): 293-299.
11. Home, M. 2003. An investigation into the design of cultivation systems for inter- and intra-row weed control. Phd Thesis. Cranfield University, Silsoe, UK.
12. Jensen, R.K., Rasmussen, J. and Melander, B. 2004. Selectivity of weed harrowing in lupin. Weed Research, 44: 245–253.
13. Jones, P.A., Blair, A.M. and Orson, J. 1996. Mechanical damage to kill weeds. Proceedings Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 949-954.
14. Kankal, U.S., Khmabalkar, V.P., Karale, D.S. and Nage, S.M. 2014. Effect of operating speed, moisture content of soil and approach angle of sweep on specific draft and weeding efficiency. The International Journal of Engineering And Science, 3 (6): 01-09.
15. Kouwenhoven, J.K. and Terpstra, R., 1979. Sorting action of tines and tine like tools in the field. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 24: 95-113.
16. Kurstjens, D.A.G. and Kropff, M.J., 2001. The impact of uprooting and soil-covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing. Weed Research, 41: 211–228.
17. Kurstjens, D.A.G. and Perdok, U.D. 2000. The selective soil covering mechanism of weed harrows on sandy soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 55: 193-206.
18. Kurstjens, D.A.G., Perdock, U.D. and Goense, D. 2000. Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Research, 40: 431–447.
19. Laguë, C. and Khelifi, M. 2001. Energy use and time requirements for different weeding strategies in grain corn. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 43: 213-221.
20. Mohler, C.L. 2001. Mechanical management of weeds. In: Liebman, M., Mohler, C.L., Staver, C.P. (Eds.), Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 139-192.
21. Paarlberg, K.R., Hanna, H.M., Erbach, D.C. and Hartzler, R.G., 1998. Cultivator design for interrow weed control in no-till corn. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 14 (4): 353–361.
22. Pullen, D.W.M. and Cowell, P.A. 1997. An evaluation of the performance of mechanical weeding mechanisms for use in high speed inter-row weeding in arable crops. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 67 (1): 27– 34.
23. Rahman, S., Chen, Y. and Lobb, D. 2005. Soil movement resulting from sweep type liquid manure injection tools. Biosystem Engineering, 91(3): 379-392.
24. Rasmussen, J. 1991. A model for prediction of yield response in weed harrowing. Weed Research, 31: 401– 408.
25. Rasmussen, J., Nielsen, H.H. and Gundersen, H. 2009. Tolerance and selectivity of cereal species and cultivars to post-emergence weed harrowing. Weed Science, 57: 338–345.
26. Rathod, R.K., Munde, P.A. and Nadre, R.G. 2010. Development of tractor drawn inter-row rotary weeder. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 3 (1): 105-109.
27. Rueda Ayala, V.P., Rasmussen, J. and Gerhards, R. 2010. Mechanical weed control. In: Oerke E.C., Gerhards, R., Menz, G. and Sikora, R.A. (Eds), Precision Crop Protection-The Challenge and Use of Heterogeneity. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 279-294.
28. Rydberg, T. 1994. Weed harrowing – the influence of driving speed and driving direction on degree of soil covering and the growth of weed and crop plants. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 10: 197–205.
29. Sharifat, K. and Kushwaha, R.L. 2000. Modeling soil movement by tillage tools. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 42 (4): 165-172.
30. Terpstra, R. and Kouwenhoven, J.K. 1981. Inter-row and intra-row weed control with a hoe-ridger. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 26: 127-134.
31. Williams, I.I., Ransom, C.V. and Thompson, W.M. 2007. Volunteer potato density influences critical time of weed removal in bulb onion. Weed Technology, 21: 136– 140.
32. Young, S.L. and Pierce, F.J. 2014. Automation: The Future of Weed Control in Cropping Systems. Springer, Newyork, USA.
33. Zhang, X. and Chen, Y. 2017. Soil disturbance and cutting forces of four different sweeps for mechanical weeding. Soil and Tillage Research, 168: 167–175.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 23, Issue 6
November and December 2021
Pages 1255-1267