Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Weed management practices in agroecosystems mainly rely on herbicide, mowing, or tillage. Electric weed control offers a novel alternative, with a range of commercially available products for weed management in agricultural environments. However, electrical weed control efficacy has not been effectively compared with conventional weed management practices. Further, electrical weed control products may have a fire risk, as highlighted but not assessed in prior studies. The current study evaluated an electric weed control machine (Zasso™ XPower) for weed management in four vineyard sites (in 2022 and 2023) in comparison to mowing and herbicide applications. Weed control tactics were applied in spring from budbreak to when shoots were approximately 10-cm long at EL growth stage 12. At an application speed of 1.1 to 1.4 km h −1 , averaged across the four sites, electric weed control at 24 or 36 kW reduced weed biomass by 84% to 87%, herbicide reduced biomass by 88%, and mowing reduced biomass by 65%. An assessment of vine normalized difference vegetation index indicated no differences in grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) canopy development (i.e., no evidence of damage to vines) after each treatment. To assess fire risk, the same machine was used at a separate field site to apply electric weed control to bare ground with varying levels of dry plant biomass. Electric weed control in the presence of completely dry plant biomass did pose a significant fire risk (average of 0.37 incidences of smoke/flame m −2 ). This technology is therefore not suitable for use in hot conditions where plant residue is dry. However, application in vineyards in the spring resulted in no evidence of fire. Our results, being the first of their kind, highlighted electric weed control as a potential alternative to chemical use that can be integrated into weed management programs in winter and spring within a Mediterranean climate.
Borger et al. (Wed,) studied this question.