Content uploaded by Joel Torra
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joel Torra on Mar 15, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Current and future glyphosate use in European agriculture
Paul Neve
1
| Maor Matzrafi
2
| Lena Ulber
3
| Bàrbara Baraibar
4
|
Roland Beffa
5
| Xavier Belvaux
6
| Joel Torra Farré
4
| Hüsrev Mennan
7
|
Björn Ringselle
8
| Jukka Salonen
9
| Josef Soukup
10
| Sabine Andert
11
|
Rebecka Duecker
12
| Emilio Gonzalez
13
| Katerina Hamouzová
10
|
Isabella Karpinski
14
| Ilias S. Travlos
15
| Francesco Vidotto
16
| Per Kudsk
17
1
Plant & Environmental Sciences Department, University of Copenhagen, Tåstrup, Denmark
2
Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Research, Agricultural Research Organization –Volcani Institute, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, Ramat Yishay, Israel
3
Julius Kühn-Insitute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Plant Protection in Field Crops and Grassland, Braunschweig, Germany
4
Department of Agricultural and Forest Sciences and Engineering, University of Lleida –Agrotecnio CERCA Center, Lleida, Spain
5
Senior Scientist Consultant, Liederbach am Taunus, Germany
6
Bayer Agriculture BV, Jan Mommaertslaan, Diegem, Belgium
7
Agriculture Faculty, Plant Protection Department, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
8
Department of Agriculture and Food, Research Institutes of Sweden (RISE), Borås, Sweden
9
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland
10
Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague-Suchdol, Czech Republic
11
Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Crop Health, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
12
Department of Crop Sciences, Plant Pathology and Crop Protection, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
13
School of Agricultural and Forestry Engineering (ETSIAM), University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
14
Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Strategies and Technology Assessment, Julius Kühn-Insitute, Kleinamchnow, Germany
15
Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece
16
DISAFA, University of Torino, Grugliasco (TO), Italy
17
Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Slagelse, Denmark
Correspondence
Paul Neve, Plant & Environmental Sciences
Department, University of Copenhagen,
Højbakkegård Allé 9, Tåstrup 2630, Denmark.
Email: pbneve@plen.ku.dk
Present address
Sabine Andert, Federal Research Centre for
Cultivated Plants, Institute for Plant Protection
in Field Crops and Grassland, Julius Kühn-
Insitute, Braunschweig, Germany.
Funding information
European Weed Research Society; Novo
Nordisk Fonden, Grant/Award Number:
NNF21OC0068600; Horizon 2020 Framework
Programme, Grant/Award Number: 801370;
Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología,
Grant/Award Number: RYC2018-023866-I;
Abstract
There has been a longstanding and contentious debate about the future of glypho-
sate use in the European Union (EU). In November 2023, the European Commission
approved the renewal of the use registration for glyphosate for a further 10 years.
Nevertheless, the EU Farm to Fork strategy calls for a 50% reduction in pesticide use
by 2030. In November 2022, the European Weed Research Society organised a 2 day
workshop to identify critical glyphosate uses in current EU cropping systems and to
review the availability of glyphosate alternatives. Workshop participants identified
four current, critical uses in EU cropping systems; control and management of peren-
nial weeds, weed control in conservation agriculture, vegetation management in tree
and vine crops and herbicide resistance management. There are few herbicide alter-
natives that provide effective, economic, broad-spectrum control of weeds,
Received: 22 September 2023 Accepted: 28 February 2024
DOI: 10.1111/wre.12624
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Authors. Weed Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Weed Research Society.
Weed Research. 2024;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/wre 1
National Agency for Agricultural Research,
Czech Republic, Grant/Award Number:
QK22010348
Subject Editor: Michael Walsh, University of
Sydney, Sydney, Australia
particularly perennial weeds. Mechanical weed control, and in particular, soil cultiva-
tion is the most obvious glyphosate alternative. However, this is not possible in con-
servation agriculture systems and, in general, increased soil cultivation has negative
impacts for soil health. Emerging technologies for precision weed control can enable
more targeted use of glyphosate, greatly reducing use rates. These technologies also
facilitate the use and development of alternative targeted physical weed control
(e.g. tillage, lasers, electricity), reducing the energy and environmental costs of these
approaches. In tree crops, the use of organic and inorganic mulches can reduce the
need for glyphosate use. In general, reduced use of glyphosate will require an even
greater focus on integrated weed management to reduce weed establishment in
agroecosystems, increase weed management diversity and limit the use of alternative
resistance-prone herbicides.
KEYWORDS
conservation agriculture, integrated weed management, perennial weeds, resistance
management, site-specific weed management, soil cultivation
1|INTRODUCTION
Glyphosate-based products have been registered and commercialised
in Europe since 1974. For much of that time, glyphosate has been
extensively used in global agriculture for broad spectrum weed con-
trol. However, in the mid- to late-1990s, the introduction of geneti-
cally modified glyphosate-tolerant crops precipitated a large global
increase in glyphosate use and sales (though these crops were not
registered for use in the EU). In 1994, the total global use of glypho-
sate in the agricultural sector was 56 296 tonnes of active ingredient
increasing to 746 580 t in 2014 (Antier et al., 2020) and with some
estimates suggesting use will rise to 920 000 t by 2025 (Maggi
et al., 2020). In 1995, 18% of the global volume of glyphosate use was
in Western Europe (Woodburn, 2000). However, by 2015, the share
of the global sales of glyphosate used in Europe had reduced to 4%
(Kleffmann Group, 2017).
Glyphosate has been described as a ‘once in a century herbicide’
because of its high efficacy, environmental safety and low cost (Duke &
Powles, 2008). Nonetheless, glyphosate use has come under scrutiny in
the EU, particularly following the classification of glyphosate as a car-
cinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015.
In 2017, following a lengthy discussion and two temporary extensions,
its approval was renewed in the EU, although only for a 5 year period
(for more details see Kudsk & Mathiassen, 2020). During the subse-
quent EU renewal process, the European Commission (EC) extended
the existing approval by 1 year to 15 December 2023 following
updated evaluation timeline requirements from the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency. In July
2023, EFSA officially communicated its conclusion that glyphosate
meets all necessary approval criteria outlined in Article 4 of the EU
Plant Protection Regulation. In subsequent deliberations, the EC and
Member States considered not only EFSA's conclusion but also societal
and political factors. On 28 November 2023, the European Commission
implemented regulation 2023/2660 renewing the approval for the use
of glyphosate for a further 10 years in accordance with regulation num-
ber 1107/2009. The new regulation prohibits the use of glyphosate for
pre-harvest crop desiccation, sets maximum use rates per hectare per
year (reduced from 2.16 to 1.44 kg a.i. ha
1
year
1
in agriculture) and
establishes additional requirements for reducing impacts on environ-
mental quality and biodiversity. The reduction in maximum use rate
may reduce control of some perennial, dicotyledenous weeds and could
make it more difficult to obtain complete destruction of some perma-
nent/perennial grasslands and cover crops.
Although European use of glyphosate only accounts for 4% of the
global sales, it is nonetheless a very important herbicide in Europe and
a complete ban on the use of glyphosate is expected to have signifi-
cant impact on weed management and the profitability of current
European agricultural systems. Several studies have been conducted
in recent years assessing the economic implications of a glyphosate
ban at crop or farm level and these were reviewed by Finger et al.
(2023). Estimated losses have ranged from 1 to 2 EUR ha
1
in silage
maize (Zea mays L.) (Böcker et al., 2018) to 553 EUR ha
1
in grapevine
(Jacquet et al., 2021). Recently, Wynn and Webb (2022) reported that,
assuming a worst-case scenario, the total costs at EU-level (before the
UK exit) of a glyphosate ban will be 10 500, 1900 and 4220 million
EUR for the wheat, (Triticum aestivum L.), potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.) and vines (Vitis vinifera L.) sectors respectively. Even with the
recent re-registration of glyphosate, EU member states may seek to
reduce glyphosate use ensuring that it is only used where and when
no alternatives are available, where the agronomic and economic ben-
efits are confirmed or where, for example, new technologies enable
targeted applications that could reduce field and farm scale use
volumes.
It was in the light of this potential scenario that the European
Weed Research Society (EWRS) decided to bring together a group of
European weed scientists for 2 days in Prague in November 2022 to
2NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
discuss critical and expendable glyphosate uses and sustainable ways
to reduce the use of glyphosate. Regardless of possible future restric-
tions on glyphosate use, this discussion is timely. Glyphosate is the
most widely used pesticide in Europe and with the EU Farm to Fork
strategy requiring a 50% reduction in pesticide use and risk by 2030,
considering ways to reduce reliance on glyphosate as a high-volume
herbicide is a key consideration to meet this goal. This paper is the
outcome of the scientific discussions during the meeting.
2|CURRENT GLYPHOSATE USE IN
EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE
Although glyphosate is the most widely used and intensively dis-
cussed pesticide active ingredient in Europe, no collated and publicly
available statistics, or data on the volume of glyphosate sales or uses
are available. Therefore, in 2019, the European ENDURE network
(ENDURE, 2023) initiated a survey to gain insights into the sales and
uses of glyphosate in the agricultural sector of Europe and neighbour-
ing non-EU countries. The survey also aimed at classifying glyphosate
uses in different crop types for further glyphosate use monitoring
studies. The survey covered the 28 EU countries (including UK in
2019) plus four non-EU countries (Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and
Turkey; EU28+4) and was based on a questionnaire sent to national
contact points in each country (see Antier et al., 2020 for details). For
countries where the gathered data were incomplete, estimates using
Eurostat data from 2017 were made and subsequently validated by
national contacts.
On average, 90% of glyphosate sales at the EU28+4 level in
2017 were in the agricultural sector (Antier et al., 2020). Glyphosate
sales represented, on average, 33% of the total sales of herbicide
active ingredients but its importance varied considerably between
countries with glyphosate accounting for between 15% and 78% of
the total national sales of herbicide active ingredients. The survey
identified annual cropping systems, perennial tree crops and grassland
as the three main agricultural systems in which glyphosate was used,
though with different objectives in each system.
In annual crops, the primary uses of glyphosate are for the termi-
nation of cover crops, the control of weeds before crop sowing, con-
trol of weeds prior to harvest and for crop desiccation (no longer
permitted following re-registration). The control of weeds prior to
crop sowing, particularly perennial weeds, was highlighted by the
workshop participants as one of the most important current major
uses of glyphosate in Europe. This practice enables conservation agri-
culture (CA) by removing the need for inversion tillage, which provides
agronomic, ecological and environmental benefits in terms of
increased soil health, fertility and carbon sequestration, and reduced
fuel consumption.
According to the survey, an average of 25%–52% of the acreage
planted with wheat, oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.), and maize (Zea
mays L.) received an annual application of glyphosate in the EU28+4.
There was considerable variation between countries in both the area
treated and glyphosate use rates (Antier et al., 2020).
In perennial crops, glyphosate is used to control weeds between
or within rows of tree crops. On average, 32%–45% of the perennial
crop acreage of fruits, olives and vines received an annual glyphosate
application in the EU28+4. The use of glyphosate in perennial crops
was also identified as an important current use during the EWRS
workshop due to a lack of alternative herbicides with comparable
efficacy on perennial weeds at late growth stages and the economic
disadvantages associated with non-chemical weed management
options.
In grassland, glyphosate is used for the renewal of permanent
grassland or the control of perennial weeds using site-specific applica-
tions. According to the survey, 19% of the temporary grassland acre-
age was treated with glyphosate.
According to Antier et al. (2020), agricultural use of glyphosate
can be classified into a) recurrent uses in farming systems charac-
terised by a high dependence on glyphosate (pre-sowing weed con-
trol, perennial weed control, weed control in perennial crops,
termination of cover crops) and b) occasional, unplanned uses related
to specific climatic or agronomic conditions (e.g. following high precip-
itation rates resulting in the need for crop desiccation). In the former,
glyphosate application is an integral part of the cropping system.
Examples of such systems are CA or minimum tillage systems where
the use of glyphosate replaces cultivation for weed control, especially
for the control of weeds before sowing, and for the termination of
cover crops.
Another major use of glyphosate identified during the EWRS
workshop is its application to control herbicide resistant weeds, espe-
cially grasses. Some grass weed species in Europe, such as Alopecurus
myosuroides and Lolium spp., have evolved resistance to several selec-
tive herbicide modes of action, such as ACCase and acetolactate
synthase (ALS) inhibitors. Evolved resistance to glyphosate has been
reported in Europe in nine weed species (Heap, 2023), predominantly
in perennial tree and vine crops where it is used annually for total
weed control. In annual crops, despite intensive glyphosate use for
weed control before crop sowing, there have been few reports of
glyphosate resistance (Collavo & Sattin, 2014; Comont et al., 2019).
Given its apparent low resistance risk, glyphosate is often promoted
as a valuable tool for managing and mitigating evolution of resistance
to selective modes of action.
3|CRITICAL GLYPHOSATE USES IN
EUROPE
Based on a series of presentations and discussions and further
informed by the Antier et al. (2020) study, workshop participants
identified the most common uses of glyphosate in European cropping
systems, highlighting four critical glyphosate uses in European agricul-
ture (Figure 1). These four critical uses were (i) managing and
NEVE ET AL.3
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
controlling perennial weeds in arable cropping systems (ii) chemical
weed control in reduced tillage and CA systems (iii) weed control in
tree (orchard and vine) crops and (iv) herbicide resistance manage-
ment. Each of these four uses is discussed further below.
3.1 |Managing perennial weeds
Due to its high systemic phloem mobility in planta, glyphosate is very
effective at controlling perennial weeds with large and complex root
and rhizome systems (e.g., Elymus repens,Cirsium arvense,Rumex obtu-
sifolius, Cyperus esculentus, Cynodon dactylon, Sorghum halepense).
Often, perennial species are highly competitive to crops and once
established, can be difficult to control without systemic herbicides,
especially if their roots/rhizomes are tolerant to tillage. Their roots/
rhizomes enable perennial weeds to reshoot following tillage and/or
defoliation and, added to this, tillage implements can result in the
breakage and movement of propagules (root fragments, rhizomes etc.)
within fields, leading to weed dispersal. For these reasons, glyphosate
is considered a critical tool for perennial weed control.
3.2 |Conservation agriculture
Currently, glyphosate use is an important component of CA. According
to the FAO (ECAF, 2020;FAO,2023), CA is described as an ecosystem
approach to regenerative, sustainable agriculture based on the applica-
tion of three interlinked principles (i) minimum mechanical soil distur-
bance (ii) permanent maintenance of a vegetative soil cover and
(iii) diversification of species. In 2020, the European Conservation Agri-
culture Federation (ECAF, 2020) determined that applying herbicides
was the most common weed control method used by farmers and
regardless of the type of soil management, 88% of farmers used glyph-
osate to control weeds at pre-sowing or pre-emergence. The use of
glyphosate for other purposes, like the termination of cover crops or
desiccation before harvest, accounted for 19% of total use.
FIGURE 1 A graphical
summary of major glyphosate
uses in European annual,
grassland, tree and vine crops.
The four critical uses were
identified as those where fewer
alternatives are available or
where alternatives have known
and unknown environmental and
economic costs or trade-offs.
4NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
In a survey conducted by ECAF, 35% of farmers indicated that
they could not find a cost-effective alternative to glyphosate
(ECAF, 2020). The main alternative to glyphosate in European CA
would be to intensify tillage and 38% of the farmers surveyed chose
this option if glyphosate were banned. The ECAF survey results iden-
tify challenges for the future of CA in the absence of glyphosate, with
32% of the CA farmers indicating they would return to conventional
tillage, and 50% that they would adopt a more intensive ‘minimum’
tillage (ECAF, 2020).
Two further considerations are important. Firstly, it takes several
years to overcome the negative effects of tillage-based agriculture
when in transition to CA. Secondly, any herbicide replacement should
ideally be effective, inexpensive, non-selective, systemic (translocated)
herbicide, able to control both annual and perennial weeds, including
grasses and broadleaved, and with little or no soil residual effect.
Chemical alternatives to glyphosate are currently more expensive and
less effective. However, in future CA systems, where there is
increased pressure to limit glyphosate (and herbicide use in general),
compromises between herbicide efficacy and use, tillage frequency
and intensity, and the use of alternative non-chemical controls may
become necessary.
3.3 |Weed control in tree (orchard and vine) crops
Conventional practices for managing weeds in tree crops typically
involve a combination of mechanical and chemical control methods.
Mechanical controls include tillage, mowing, and hoeing in the alleys
between tree rows (Mas et al., 2007; Miñarro, 2012). In vine crops,
mechanical weeding can also be carried out beneath the crop plants
(Valencia-Gredilla et al., 2020). From an integrated weed management
(IWM) perspective and with the spread of organic farming in tree
crops, other cultural weed control methods including mulching and
cover crops are increasingly being used (see Section 4.3.2). Herbicides
are commonly used for weed management under the tree rows, with
both pre- and post-emergence applications being employed. Glypho-
sate is the most widely used post-emergence herbicide due to its
effectiveness, versatility, and cost-efficiency and glyphosate is used
on 50% of the acreage of perennial crops every year compared to
30% for annual crops in Europe (Antier et al., 2020). In this way,
glyphosate has enabled and encouraged the adoption of reduced soil
disturbance or non-till practices in tree crops, limiting damage to tree
roots and reducing soil erosion.
3.4 |Herbicide resistance management
In some European cropping systems, glyphosate has become an
important component of IWM strategies, particularly with respect to
herbicide resistance management. To date in Europe, there have been
427 independent confirmed cases of herbicide resistance evolution
(each case represents a unique species by country and herbicide mode
of action combination) (Heap, 2023). Of these cases, 174 report
resistance to ALS inhibiting herbicide (HRAC group 2), while there are
46 cases of resistance to acetyl-coA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibiting
herbicides (HRAC group 1). These numbers indicate an over-reliance
on these two herbicide modes of action in European agriculture dur-
ing the last 40 years, partly due to the withdrawal of much of the
‘older’chemistry as a result of the re-current review of active ingredi-
ents in the EU. Glyphosate has been used in European agriculture
since 1974, yet the first cases of evolved resistance to glyphosate in
Europe were only reported in 2004 (Heap, 2023). Currently, there are
34 unique cases of glyphosate resistance reported in Europe. Whilst
over-use and exclusive reliance on glyphosate for weed control are
undesirable and unsustainable, it is clear that glyphosate carries a rela-
tively low risk of rapid evolution of resistance (in the continued
absence of glyphosate tolerant crop use in Europe) compared to other
herbicide mode of action classes. This fact makes glyphosate a crucial
component of IWM strategies that aim to reduce selection for resis-
tance by maximising herbicide mode of action diversity within and
between cropping seasons. For example, the use of false seed beds
and delayed crop sowing provides an opportunity to encourage an
early emergence of a weed cohort before a crop becomes established
(Moss et al., 2007). Controlling these early emerging weed cohorts
with glyphosate provides a means to diversify herbicidal weed control
and reduce selection for resistance to other pre- and post-emergence
herbicide modes of action in situations where the use of weed har-
rowing is not possible or desirable. Additionally, such glyphosate use
could also reduce weed emergence in the following crop and allow for
a lower combined herbicide use. In this regard, in Europe where
genetically modified glyphosate tolerant crops are not grown, glypho-
sate maintains a unique position in resistance management and IWM
strategies.
4|OPTIONS FOR REDUCING
GLYPHOSATE USE IN EUROPE
While the future regulatory status of glyphosate in Europe remains
uncertain, the need to reduce reliance on pesticides by 50% is already
established by the EU Farm to Fork strategy. In this context, there is a
strong imperative to maintain glyphosate for situations where there
are limited effective alternatives, and to seek to develop alternative
tools, technologies and systems that reduce reliance on glyphosate.
Workshop participants discussed the four critical uses identified
above to assess which alternatives are available (Table 1), evaluate the
trade-offs associated with their use, determine their technology readi-
ness level (TRL) and identify further research required to maximise
their potential and practical adoption.
4.1 |Controlling perennial weeds without
glyphosate in annual crops
Here, we distinguish between direct control alternatives for glypho-
sate (options that result in removal and mortality of established plants)
NEVE ET AL.5
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 1 A summary of major identified alternatives for critical glyphosate uses and their agronomic advantages and disadvantages.
Agronomic outcome
Alternatives for glyphosate uses Advantages Disadvantages References
Physical
Tillage (not suitable for
conservation agriculture)
Loosening of compacted surface
soil, incorporation of crop
residues, crop root disease
control
Removes soil cover which increases
the risk of soil erosion, nutrient
leaching, CO2 losses negative
effect on soil health and structure,
weed control efficacy dependent
on equipment, frequency of
application and climatic and soil
conditions. Reduction of
important ecosystem services, for
example, weed seed predation can
increase perennial weed
propagation if used incorrectly.
Lindstrom et al. (1992),
Westerman et al. (2003),
Baumgartner et al. (2007),
Reicosky and Archer (2007),
Anderson (2009), Davis et al.
(2011), Aronsson et al. (2015),
Thomsen et al. (2015),
Hammermeister (2016) and
Cooray et al. (2023)
Mowing Retains soil moisture, mitigates
soil erosion. Can be combined
with some competitive crops
such as leys and cover crops.
Repeated application required. Not
effective against some perennial
weed species.
Al-Mufti et al. (1977), Donald
(2006) and Soriano et al. (2014)
Flaming/hot steam Preserving soil structure and
preventing leaching of nutrients
Repeated application required, short
duration of efficacy, not effective
against perennials and weeds at
late growth stages, less effective
against grass weeds, high
operational costs and high
greenhouse gas emissions caused
by the burning of fossil fuels
Stefanelli et al. (2009), Shrestha
et al. (2013), Granatstein et al.
(2014), Lisek (2014) and
Morselli et al. (2022)
Electro weeding Preserving soil structure and
preventing leaching of nutrients
can damage and kill
belowground organs of
perennial weeds.
Primarily effective against small
plants with shallow roots.
Repeated application required,
especially against large plants,
grasses and perennial weeds.
Most solutions currently on the
market use a lot of energy, and
some have a risk of causing fires.
Bloomer et al. (2022), Schreier
et al. (2022) and Feys et al.
(2023)
Root/rhizome cutters
(controlling perennial weeds
with large and complex root
and rhizome systems)
Minimal soil inversion and
disturbance, leading to low risk
of erosion/nutrient leaching,
loosening of compacted soil.
Low energy is used compared to
many forms of tillage.
Repeated application required. Does
not target annual weeds,
especially those with shallow
roots. Not yet on the market.
Hakansson et al. (1998), Thomsen
et al. (2011), Melander, Munier-
Jolain, et al. (2013), Brandsæter
et al. (2017,2020) and Weigel
et al. (2023)
Non-chemical termination of
cover crops (e.g., roller
crimper)
Reduced soil erosion and soil
moisture conservation due to
biomass on the soil surface,
weed suppression
Efficacy of machinery often not
sufficient and highly dependent
on soil texture, moisture
conditions, growth stage of the
cover crop and amounts of plant
biomass
Kornecki et al. (2009), Frasconi
et al. (2019), Ashford and
Reeves (2003) and Sportelli
et al. (2023)
Dead organic or synthetic
mulching
Preserved soil moisture, reduced
evaporation and erosion.
Organic mulch can provide
nutrients and allelochemical
effects.
Organic mulch often less effective
and durable than synthetic
material. High cost of some
organic mulches. Inefficient
control of many perennial species.
Increased soil temperature.
Granatstein and Sanchez (2009),
Granatstein et al. (2014), Lisek
(2014), Hammermeister (2016)
and _
Zelazny and Licznar-
Mała
nczuk (2018)
Reducing seed production and
replenishment of the seed
bank (e.g., seed destruction)
Reduced demand for disturbance
and competition for succeeding
crop management.
Practicalities of different available
systems and efficacy on different
weed species not widely assessed
under European conditions
Bitarafan and Andreasen (2020),
Walsh and Powles (2022) and
Akhter et al. (2023)
6NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
and indirect, cultural alternatives that reduce the establishment
and growth of perennial weeds. The primary direct control alterna-
tives are intensive tillage (e.g., multiple harrowing operations followed
by ploughing or short-term fallows at the beginning of the
growing season or in mid-summer after the first grassland harvest),
selective herbicides, defoliation treatments (e.g., flaming, mowing) and
non-tillage and non-herbicide methods that can directly affect roots/
rhizomes (e.g., steaming, electricity, solarization) (Ringselle
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Agronomic outcome
Alternatives for glyphosate uses Advantages Disadvantages References
Cultural
Crop rotation diversification Increased biodiversity and
provision of ecosystem services,
increased soil fertility and
nutrient cycling, disease
suppression
Lower profitability of some crop
types. More knowledge intensive.
Some crops require on-farm
investment (e.g., specialised
harvesting equipment) and/or off-
farm investment (e.g., cleaning
and processing facilities).
Liebman and Dyck (1993),
Krupinsky et al. (2002),
Tamburini et al. (2020),
Weisberger et al. (2019), and
Colbach and Cordeau (2022)
Increasing crop competition Reduction of crop yield losses
from weed competition and
reduced weed seed bank
replenishment
Insufficient information on individual
competitiveness of crop varieties.
Much knowledge and technology
development needed to make
alternative and more competitive
cropping systems/options more
viable such as intercropping,
variety mixtures etc.
Lutman et al. (2013), Andrew et al.
(2015), van der Meulen and
Chauhan (2017), Sardana et al.
(2017) and Gaba et al. (2018)
Cover crops/living mulch Provides many side-benefits in
addition to weed competition,
for example, improved soil
quality, reduced erosion,
increased biodiversity, crop/
livestock integration, water
management, host to beneficial
organisms (e.g., pollinators, seed
predators)
Yield reductions due to competition
for water and nutrients, cover
crop species/type selection and
management important, challenge
of cover crop establishment in
droughts. Can be hosts to
detrimental organisms (e.g., plant
diseases, aphids).
Lisek (2014), Mauro et al. (2015),
Hammermeister (2016),
Montanaro et al. (2017), _
Zelazny
and Licznar-Mała
nczuk (2018)
Duke et al. (2022), Fernando
and Shrestha (2023) and van
Eerd et al. (2023)
Chemical
Selective herbicides Target-specific weed control Reduced control of larger and
perennial weeds, limited weed
spectrum. Some selective
herbicides have worse
environmental and/or health
impacts than glyphosate.
Fogliatto et al. (2020)
Natural product-based
herbicides (e.g., pelargonic
acid)
Direct substitution for glyphosate Primarily effective against small
plants with shallow roots.
Repeated application required,
especially against large plants,
grasses and perennial weeds.
Requires high doses for
acceptable efficacy, and efficacy
highly dependent on
environmental conditions.
Kanatas et al. (2021), Ganji et al.
(2023) and Loddo et al. (2023)
Spot/patch spraying on
stubble
Reduced herbicide costs and
reduced environmental impact.
Potential to benefit biodiversity
and ecosystem services by not
spraying all weeds (requires
advanced weed species and
weed developmental stage
identification which is not fully
developed currently).
Technical limitations (e.g., different
biotic and abiotic disturbances,
computational speed). May reduce
efficacy as some weeds are
misidentified and not treated.
Fernández-Quintanilla et al. (2018)
and Allmendinger et al. (2022)
Note: Further details are found in the cited literature and in Section 4.
NEVE ET AL.7
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
et al., 2020). The primary indirect control methods are effective crop
rotations with competitive crops and cover crops. Combining the use
of competitive crops and mechanical control can increase the control
of some perennial weeds, for example, competitive ley crops that are
regularly mowed are effective against some perennial weed species,
but not others (Thomsen et al., 2015). Very high cutting-frequencies
(e.g., weekly or biweekly) are effective against most species, but not
for example R. obtusifolius (van Evert et al., 2020).
Tillage can have several positive agronomic effects, for example
reducing plant diseases and preparing the soil for the next crop (espe-
cially relevant in northern Europe). However, intensive tillage can
have a negative effect on soil health and structure and can increase
the risk of soil erosion and nutrient leaching by increasing the period
of time when soil is bare (Aronsson et al., 2015; Klik & Rosner, 2020).
Intensive tillage is also difficult to combine with cover crops
(Melander, Munier-Jolain, et al., 2013). Negative effects can be
reduced to some extent by avoiding late season tillage, but in regions
with a high risk of erosion (e.g., parts of Spain) even a few days with-
out a crop or residue cover can carry significant risks. New tillage
tools such as root/rhizome cutters, uprooting and rhizome removal
technology, and precision hoeing present new opportunities to con-
trol perennial weeds with less soil inversion and associated risks of
soil erosion (Ringselle et al., 2020). Prototypes of the vertical and hori-
zontal root cutters have been tested against multiple perennial weed
species, showing that the horizontal root cutter can reduce the expan-
sion of C. arvense (Weigel et al., 2023) and the vertical root cutter can
reduce E. repens in a growing grass-clover crop to the benefit of the
crop (Ringselle et al., 2018) but that vertical root cutters are less effec-
tive in compacted soils (Ringselle et al., 2023) Precision hoeing, where
the depth and angle of the hoeing implement can be continuously
adjusted, could potentially be a more environmentally benign method
for controlling perennial weeds, but the TRL is still low and the effect
against perennial weeds is not very well studied (Gerhards
et al., 2022). Machines that pull rhizomes from the ground
(e.g. Kvikfinn) are already commercially available, but they are quite
soil disruptive and are primarily effective against species with shallow
roots/rhizomes such as E. repens (Lötjönen & Salonen, 2016).
As European cropping systems endeavour to transition towards
net zero carbon emissions, it is also critical to recognise that intensive
tillage requires more energy consumption than glyphosate use,
and that some of the non-chemical alternatives to tillage
(e.g., microwaves, electricity) are even more energy demanding.
Emerging technologies that enable more precise targeting of weeds
could significantly reduce the energy requirements of non-chemical
alternatives in future (Coleman et al., 2019). However, using these
technologies to enable targeted glyphosate spraying may be more
resource efficient as alternatives such as electrical weed control,
which can kill roots/rhizomes without soil cultivation, often require
multiple passes and/or long treatment times to kill perennial weeds,
especially established plants (Feys et al., 2023).
In Europe, the main current barrier to targeted glyphosate spray-
ing on stubbles and/or for early season control of emerging weeds
(so-called green on brown technology, see Allmendinger et al., 2022)
is the low cost of glyphosate and the relatively high costs of precision
spraying equipment, meaning that effective control of weeds
(including perennial weeds) is still less costly and more efficient using
conventional spraying systems. Increasingly, the ambition for image-
based weed detection technologies is to develop algorithms that can
distinguish weeds from crops and therefore enable the selective
removal of weeds from crops (green on green technology,
Allmendinger et al., 2022), though identifying specific weed species is
still problematic, especially in crops and cover crops (Coleman
et al., 2022). So far, using image-based mapping and identification is
only feasible for some species (e.g., C. arvense, Rasmussen
et al., 2021). As technologies continue to evolve and are brought to
EU markets at affordable costs, the prospects for enabling and requir-
ing targeted glyphosate application to reduce field-scale use rates for
the control of perennial (and other) weeds present a promising way to
greatly support EU herbicide use reduction targets. In Australia, real-
time vision-guided weed control using green on green technology is
resulting in up to 90% reduction in herbicide use in fallow (uncropped)
fields (Beckie et al., 2019).
Using indirect control methods, such as diverse crop rotations
and cover crops, to control perennial weeds would bring many bene-
fits, such as increased biodiversity, soil health, and economic resilience
(Beillouin et al., 2021). Moreover, using indirect methods in an IWM
context to control perennial weeds would bring more weed diversity,
and potentially prevent dominance by a few highly competitive,
resistance-prone annual weed species (Adeux et al., 2019; Storkey &
Neve, 2018). However, profitability-constraints hinder the adoption
of many ‘beneficial crops’such as leys that have the potential to con-
trol perennial weeds including C. arvense and S. arvensis. For other
species, for example, E. repens, there is a need for more studies on
how different cropping system approaches could sufficiently reduce
the need for glyphosate applications without using intensive tillage
(Ringselle et al., 2020).
4.2 |Glyphosate alternatives in CA
Weed control has been one of the main challenges for reduced soil
tillage systems, so the discovery and introduction of selective (2,4 D,
dicamba) and non-selective (paraquat, glyphosate) herbicides have
facilitated the spread of CA all over the world, especially in dry
regions. The extent of glyphosate use in CA systems depends on the
intensity and frequency of tillage operations. No-till and reduced till-
age systems rely more on glyphosate (Andert et al., 2018) due to
higher pressure from perennial weeds, volunteer crops and weed spe-
cies that prefer low disturbance systems (Lutman et al., 2013).
In CA systems, glyphosate is used to terminate cover crops, and
to control volunteer crops, and surviving weeds before crop sowing.
Replacement of glyphosate with selective herbicides in systems pre-
sents several constraints: reduced weed control spectrum, less effec-
tive control of larger weeds, difficulties with controlling perennial
8NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
weeds and the increased risk of herbicide resistance (post-emergence
applications). To be able to conduct CA with reduced use or even
without glyphosate, we propose four alternative and synergistic non-
chemical methods: (i) crop rotation diversification, (ii) non-chemical
termination of cover crops, (iii) enhancing crop competitiveness, and
(iv) introducing perennialised grain crops.
4.2.1 | More diverse crop rotation
Weeds typically emerge seasonally and are associated with specific
crops. Diversification of species is one of three pillars of CA
(FAO, 2023) and implementing more diverse field-specific crop rota-
tions can effectively lower weed pressure and reliance on glyphosate.
In this context to provide farmers with profitable crop options,
research including modelling, and advances in breeding technologies
and management practices for resilience to climate change is needed
(Colbach & Cordeau, 2022). However, even with diverse crop rota-
tions, the absence of glyphosate and minimal soil disturbance may
lead to the establishment of problematic weeds, and especially peren-
nial weeds like C. arvense and E. repens. To tackle this, ongoing
research focuses on managing creeping perennials through, for exam-
ple, low soil disturbance methods using mechanical tools that cut
roots/rhizomes horizontally or vertically based on weed species
(Brandsæter et al., 2017,2020; Ringselle et al., 2018; Thomsen
et al., 2015).
4.2.2 | Termination of cover crops
When cover crops are present, their efficient termination is crucial for
weed-free seedbed preparation and to limit competition with the
main crop (Rosario-Lebron et al., 2019)–the common method is
glyphosate use. Alternatively, cover crops can be killed by winter frost
in cold-temperate regions or actively destroyed through mowing,
roller crimping, or other herbicide applications. Roller crimpers have
emerged as a sustainable approach to terminate cover crops and cre-
ate natural mulch in reduced tillage systems (Antichi et al., 2022;
Kornecki, 2020). The discussion around tillage versus roller crimper
approaches has attracted interest in Europe (Navarro-Mir
o
et al., 2019), yet detailed research is needed to assess the effective-
ness of prototypes across different soil textures, moisture conditions,
and biomass levels, aiming to improve the tool and broaden its appli-
cability (Sportelli et al., 2023). However, it is important to remember
that for some cover crops, the use of a roller crimper alone may not
be sufficient. Miville and Leroux (2018) found a glyphosate application
prior to rolling winter rye mulch is crucial to achieve effective cover
crop termination. Without glyphosate, there was rye regrowth that
competed with the subsequent crop. Another option is using herbi-
cides like pelargonic acid for cover crop desiccation. Ganji et al., 2023
found it reasonably effective within a week, but further research is
needed to ensure its suitability for on-farm use and to refine technical
application details.
4.2.3 | Competitive crops and cultivars
Gaba et al. (2018) showed that the effect of crop competition on the
weed assemblage was much stronger than the effect of nitrogen ferti-
liser and even weed control. In the presence of a strong suppressive
cultivar, annual weed species will have reduced seed production,
which is a viable part of a long-term strategy in CA for weed control
(Andrew et al., 2015; Melander, Nørremark, & Kristensen, 2013). To
manage creeping perennial weeds in CA, closing gaps in competition
by subsidiary crops (cover crops, catch crops, either under-sown in
the main crop or established after harvest) is also an important strate-
gic option (Favrelière et al., 2020; Teasdale et al., 2007; Thomsen
et al., 2015).
4.2.4 | Cultivation of perennial and perennialised
annual crops
Perennial forage crops like lucerne, clover, and grasses play a positive
role in reducing the soil seedbank of annual weeds. Increasing their
presence in crop rotations and harvesting them before weed seed dis-
persal benefits subsequent crop establishment in CA systems.
Another area of research focuses on perennialised annual crops, aim-
ing to make crop production more sustainable through reduced tillage,
increased soil cover and carbon sequestration. Notably, efforts have
been made to develop a perennial grain crop called Kernza
®
from
intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) and a perennial rice (Zhang
et al., 2023). Initial studies on Kernza
®
demonstrated low autumn
weed biomass over 4 years, though spring weed biomass remained
high (Duchene et al., 2023). Weeds did not significantly affect IWG
yields, likely due to differing ecological requirements. Further research
is necessary to confirm the efficacy of perennialised crops in weed
management, particularly for perennial species, while ensuring accept-
able yields for farmers.
4.3 |Weed management in tree crops with
reduced glyphosate use
Here, we consider three broad categories of approach that could
reduce the need for, and extent of, glyphosate use for broad spectrum
non-selective weeds in tree crops. Cover crops between trees/vine
rows can suppress weeds during their active growth and through resi-
due management (Fogliatto et al., 2020). Dead/organic mulches offer
a glyphosate-alternative option to manage intra-row weeds (Cabrera-
Pérez et al., 2022). The role of precision agriculture methods is also
considered critical for IWM in perennial crops (Fogliatto et al., 2020).
4.3.1 | Cover crop selection
Cereals are characterised by high biomass production and competi-
tiveness (Sharma et al., 2021). In Greek olive groves, Festuca
NEVE ET AL.9
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
arundinacea Schreb. (tall fescue) reduced glyphosate-resistant Conyza
albida Willd. ex Spreng. (fleabane) density by 77% (Travlos
et al., 2017). Mauro et al. (2015) reported that Avena sativa L. (oats)
reduced weed biomass by 58%–71% in orange orchards in Italy. In
Spanish vineyards, barley cultivars suppressed Cynodon dactylon (L.)
Pers. (bermudagrass) by shading the ground at the beginning of stolon
formation (Valencia-Gredilla et al., 2020).
Legumes provide a considerable degree of weed suppression
while enriching the soil with nitrogen (Das et al., 2021). In Turkish
hazelnut orchards, Vicia villosa Roth (hairy vetch) resulted in 95%
lower weed biomass (Isik et al., 2014). Vicia sativa L. (common vetch)
reduced weed biomass by 53% in citrus orchards infested with Avena
sterilis L. (sterile oat) and Capsella bursa-pastoris L. Medik. (shepherd's
purse) (Kolören & Uygur, 2007). In Italian apricot orchards, weed bio-
mass decreased by 32%–41% and weed seed bank decreased by 54%
in Trifolium subterraneum L. (subterranean clover) plots (Restuccia
et al., 2020; Scavo et al., 2021).
Crucifers have excellent allelopathic potential against weeds con-
taining glucosinolates which are hydrolysed into allelochemicals such
as isothiocyanates upon plant decomposition (Haramoto &
Gallandt, 2004), meaning that weed suppression is also achieved
through residue management. Sinapis alba L. (white mustard) and
B. juncea (L.) Czern. (oriental mustard) reduced weed biomass (up to
60%) in Greek citrus orchards and vineyards in France (Fourie
et al., 2015; Kanatas et al., 2021). In Spain, Alcántara et al. (2011)
found that white mustard residues reduced Chenopodium album and
Amaranthus spp. biomass and delayed weed emergence by 3–
4 weeks; leaving mulch on the soil surface was the optimal manage-
ment method. Furthermore, autonomous mowers can improve effi-
cacy as shown by Peruzzi et al. (2023) who repeatedly mowed a grass
cover crop reducing Conyza spp. density by 61%–84%. However, a
disadvantage of cover crops is that they cannot suppress intra-row
weeds. To address this, Martinelli et al. (2022) used mowers that cut
the cover crop and move the residue to the intra-row area.
Mixtures of species with different characteristics create a cover
crop serving multiple functions (MacLaren et al., 2019). From the per-
spective of weed management, the complementarity of functional
traits improves biomass production and weed suppression (Ranaldo
et al., 2020). For instance, Haring and Hanson (2022) smothered weed
growth in almond orchards with a cereal rye-legume-crucifer mixture.
Moreover, a barley-legume mixture outcompeted Oxalis pes-caprae
L. (Bermuda buttercup) in olive groves in Greece (Volakakis
et al., 2022).
4.3.2 | Dead and organic mulches
Mulch is any bulk material placed on the soil surface to control weeds
and/or preserve moisture. Environmentally-friendly organic mulches
suppress weed emergence by creating a physical barrier intercepting
light/temperature and through the release of allelochemicals inhibiting
weed seed germination (Cabrera-Pérez et al., 2022). Recent studies
showed that lignin-rich materials such as chopped pine wood, pruning
waste, almond shell etc. decompose slowly facilitating long-term sup-
pression of intra-row weeds in orchards/vineyards (Cabrera-Pérez
et al., 2022; Goh & Tutua, 2004;L
opez-Urrea et al., 2020). Finally, the
exploitation of pruning waste and other organic materials as mulch in
orchards can reduce the carbon footprint associated with transport
for the removal of this waste and promote a circular economy and by-
product reuse (L
opez-Urrea et al., 2020).
4.3.3 | Precision weed control
Site-specific weed management in perennial crops can be another
alternative to glyphosate. Real-time information-based patch spraying
sensors, like Weedseeker
®
, or Weed-it
®
are now commercially avail-
able (Fernández-Quintanilla et al., 2018). While glyphosate is still
available in Europe, these systems could clearly optimise its use and
reduce environmental impacts. For other herbicides, these sensors
should be improved to differentiate grass from broadleaf weeds, to
selectively apply ACCase-inhibitors or auxin mimics respectively for
their control.
For physical weed control in tree crops, there is also potential to
develop precision agricultural machinery. Site-specific mechanical
weeders or camera-guided hoes might be adaptable to remove weeds
between rows and/or in-row, depending on the set-up and cost-
effectiveness (Fernández-Quintanilla et al., 2018; Walsh et al., 2020).
4.4 |Glyphosate use in an IWM and resistance
management context
The utility of glyphosate for herbicide resistance management was
established above. In theory, resistance management can be achieved
by all chemical or non-chemical means that minimise selection pres-
sure for weed resistance. If the use of glyphosate must be reduced, it
will be necessary to place greater emphasis on non-chemical control
options (Riemens et al., 2022). Four of these options are discussed
below; reducing weed establishment in crops, increasing crop compe-
tition, reducing seed production and replenishment of the seed bank,
and targeted mechanical control.
4.4.1 | Reducing weed establishment in crops
In cases where the dominant weed species emerge slightly before, or
at the same time, as the crop, it can be possible to delay crop sowing
to enable early emerging weed cohorts to be controlled before crop
establishment (see Section 4.4.1). For example, in Europe, the grass
weeds A. myosuroides and Apera spica-venti typically emerge in early
autumn, and delaying crop sowing by 3–4 weeks can provide an
opportunity for early season control and reduce in-crop weed densi-
ties (Chauvel et al., 2001; Lutman et al., 2013). Glyphosate plays a key
role for enabling these approaches, often via the use of a stale seed
bed, such that early weed germination and emergence is encouraged
10 NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
and early emerging weeds are controlled with glyphosate. Repetitive
mechanical control of stale seed beds can achieve similar results,
though this is not always feasible (Lamichhane et al., 2018) and has
the potential to incur a range of other soil health and energy con-
sumption costs. In the case of a total ban of glyphosate, and where
mechanical weed control is not possible or desirable, it will be neces-
sary to use other broad-spectrum herbicides. Pelargonic acid may also
be used, though it is generally recognised to have lower efficacy and
higher costs than glyphosate (Ganji et al., 2023).
Crop rotation effectively reduces establishment of well-adapted
weed species. In annual crop sequences, weed populations are sub-
jected to different ecological filters, potentially reducing population
sizes of individual weed species by suppressing propagule numbers
over time, and thus affecting weed seedbank dynamics (Gurusinghe
et al., 2022; Weisberger et al., 2019). Optimising these cultural weed
control methods requires detailed knowledge of weed biology and
ecological interactions (Schwartz-Lazaro et al., 2021).
4.4.2 | Increasing crop competition
More competitive crop species, for example, barley, can reduce weed
growth and ultimately limit weed seed set (Lutman et al., 2013). Simi-
larly, the use of more competitive crop cultivars, which have early vig-
our, planophile leaf angles, extensive tillering and/or exude
allelopathic chemicals, can lead to a competitive advantage for crop
plants over weeds (Andrew et al., 2015; Lutman et al., 2013;
Seavers & Wright, 1999).
Crop competition can also be increased by higher sowing densi-
ties and altered sowing techniques and row spacing. For example,
increasing the crop density of winter wheat from 100 to 200 or
300 plants m
2
reduced the number of A. myosuroides seed heads by
17% and 32% respectively (Lutman et al., 2013). In addition, uniform
and faster soil coverage obtained by precision seeding leads to better
weed suppression than crop stands established by drill seeding (Olsen
et al., 2005). Equidistant sowing with optimised spacing could
enhance the effect of weed suppression by crop competition. Con-
versely, increasing row spacing may enable and optimise other weed
management techniques such as finger weeders, hoes or hoeing
robots, though crop competitiveness versus weeds may be reduced
and crop-crop intra-specific competition increased.
4.4.3 | Reducing seed production and
replenishment of the seed bank
In Australia, and increasingly in other global agroecosystems, several
harvest weed seed control (HWSC) tools are widely used to target
weed seeds during crop harvest to prevent seedbank inputs (Walsh
et al., 2017). While narrow-window burning cannot be used in Europe
due to legal restrictions, the other methods, such as seed destructors
(impact mills), chaff tramlining, chaff carts, and the bale-direct system,
have potential as a component in IWM but have yet to be widely used
in European agriculture (Kudsk et al., 2020). The potential for HWSC
is low to intermediate for early shedding weeds like A. myosuroides or
A. spica-venti or for short stature weeds like Polygonum aviculare.
Weeds such as Galium aparine or L. rigidum can be effectively targeted
by HWSC systems (Akhter et al., 2023). It may also be possible to
selectively remove or reduce seed set on unripe inflorescences that
emerge above the crop canopy using mowing or electrical weeding to
reduce seed set of early shedding species. However, these practices
can induce production of new seed heads (Akhter et al., 2023).
4.4.4 | Targeted mechanical control
The manifold possibilities of mechanical weed control including
ploughing, harrowing and hoeing require considerable expertise and
investment and are more dependent on environmental influences
than chemical measures. Implements for the selective removal of
weeds between crop rows such as finger weeders must be used in the
early growth stages of the weed and are highly effective for weed
species with shallow and compact root systems, such as A. sterilis
(Asaf et al., 2023). Camera-steered hoes with a hydraulic side shifting
control are widely available for row crops, however, sensor-based
technology for precision mechanical weed control is still in develop-
ment (Machleb et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is anticipated that auton-
omous robots mounted with image-based sensors to detect weeds
will be able to precisely target mechanical and physical control tech-
niques to remove weeds that have survived chemical treatments due
to herbicide resistance (Machleb et al., 2020).
5|CONCLUSIONS
Even in Europe, where genetically modified glyphosate tolerant crops
are not cultivated, glyphosate has become a critical component of
many crop and weed management systems Several factors have con-
tributed to sustained increases in glyphosate use: it is inexpensive and
highly effective with a broad spectrum of weed control, including hard
to control perennial weeds; it is generally considered to have low
environmental toxicity; it facilitates the adoption of reduced tillage
and CA approaches, minimising the need for weed and cover crop
control by soil cultivation or disturbance and; it is a relatively low
resistance risk herbicide that can be used in combination with, for
example, false seed beds to reduce weed establishment in crops,
thereby reducing the need for in-crop control by resistance-prone
modes of action. These agronomic and economic attributes account
for glyphosate being the most extensively used pesticide in Europe
and, as such, glyphosate use contributes to concerns about the nega-
tive impacts of excessive pesticide use on environmental quality, bio-
diversity and low cropping system diversity in the EU.
The EU Farm to Fork strategy clearly emphasises the need to
reduce reliance on pesticides. Our analysis and discussion has
highlighted some areas where this will pose a challenge. Glyphosate is
the most important herbicide for the control of perennial weeds due
NEVE ET AL.11
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
to its systemic properties. Other herbicide modes of action such as
auxins and ACCase inhibitors are available for in-crop control of
perennial broadleaved and grass weeds respectively but their efficacy
and versatility are lower than that of glyphosate. Without glyphosate,
more mechanical weeding will be necessary in many fields, and this
will increase fuel consumption and the risk of soil erosion.
Perhaps the greatest of these challenges relates to consequences
for CA where many glyphosate alternatives inevitably lead to heavier
reliance on soil cultivation for weed control and cover crop termina-
tion. In the event of a complete glyphosate ban, and where weed
populations are high, it is currently difficult to envisage sustainable
weed management without a return to a higher dependence on soil
cultivation, which was also broadly acknowledged by EU authorities.
The further development of root and rhizome cutters for controlling
perennial weeds may have a place in CA and conventional systems in
the future. Glyphosate use can, however, be reduced in CA systems
through judicious crop rotation to reduce weed populations, non-
chemical (and non-cultivation) based termination of cover crops and
the use and development of systems for ‘see and spray’site-specific
glyphosate applications. In tree crops, the most promising approaches
are to increase the use of cover crops and mulches to reduce weed
establishment, and precision weed management to target remaining
weeds, either using glyphosate where still permitted or mechanical
control with camera-guided hoes. Finally, concerns were raised about
the consequences of a loss of glyphosate for herbicide resistance
management as this would put further pressure on resistance-prone
modes of action and compromise some IWM strategies which rely on
glyphosate use.
Very few tools in agriculture are indispensable and though glyph-
osate is a critical component of many current systems, alternatives
can contribute to future weed management systems. Banning glypho-
sate or dramatically limiting its future use may precipitate systemic
and agroecosystem level impacts, resulting in trade-offs in weed man-
agement efficacy, crop yield and profitability, soil health, and biodiver-
sity. It is important that these trade-offs are anticipated and that
research to optimise the cost, efficacy and environmental benefit of
alternatives is prioritised.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All authors acknowledge receipt of a travel and subsistence award
from the European Weed Research Society to cover expenses associ-
ated with attendance at a 2 day workshop hosted by the Czech Uni-
versity of Life Sciences, Prague. PN was funded by a Novo Nordisk
Foundation ‘starting package’(NNF21OC0068600) at the time of
workshop attendance and during the writing of this manuscript. BB
was funded by the post-doctoral fellowship program Beatriu de Pin
os,
awarded by the Catalan Government and the Horizon 2020 program
of research and innovation of the EU under the Marie Sklodowska-
Curie grant agreement number 801370. JTF acknowledges support
from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities
(grant Ramon y Cajal RYC2018-023866-I). KH was funded by Project
No. QK22010348 entitled: Autonomous systems as tools for inte-
grated vegetable production; funded by National Agency for Agricul-
tural Research, Czech Republic.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This perspectives paper is an output from a two-day workshop hosted
by the Czech University of Life Sciences and organised by the
European Weed Research Society (EWRS). Workshop attendees and
co-authors were provided with a travel and subsistence grant by
the EWRS.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
X. Belvaux is an employee of Bayer Crop Science, a manufacturer of
crop protection products including glyphosate. Some other co-authors
are currently in receipt of research funding from manufacturers of
crop protection products. These authors declare no conflicts of inter-
est and have provided independent scientific opinions and insights
during the EWRS workshop and subsequent manuscript preparation.
PEER REVIEW
The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.
webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/wre.12624.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The authors declare that no new data was collected, presented or ana-
lysed for publication of this paper.
ORCID
Paul Neve https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3136-5286
Maor Matzrafi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4867-0850
Lena Ulber https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2829-1527
Bàrbara Baraibar https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1601-7731
Joel Torra Farré https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8666-6780
Hüsrev Mennan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1410-8114
Björn Ringselle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7081-1277
Ilias S. Travlos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7713-0204
Francesco Vidotto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0971-1445
Per Kudsk https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2431-3610
REFERENCES
Adeux, G., Vieren, E., Carlesi, S., Bàrberi, P., Munier-Jolain, N. &
Cordeau, S. (2019) Mitigating crop yield losses through weed diversity.
Nature Sustainability, 2(11), 1018–1026. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41893-019-0415-y
Akhter, M.J., Sønderskov, M., Loddo, D., Ulber, L., Hull, R. & Kudsk, P.
(2023) Opportunities and challenges for harvest weed seed control in
European cropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 142,
126639. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2022.126639
Alcántara, C., Pujadas, A. & Saavedra, M. (2011) Management of Sinapis
alba subsp. mairei winter cover crop residues for summer weed control
in southern Spain. Crop Protection, 30(9), 1239–1244. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2011.04.007
Allmendinger, A., Spaeth, M., Saile, M., Peteinatos, G.G. & Gerhards, R.
(2022) Precision chemical weed management strategies: a review and
a design of a new CNN-based modular spot sprayer. Agronomy, 12(7),
1–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071620
Al-Mufti, M.M., Sydes, C.L., Furness, S.B., Grime, J.P. & Band, S.R. (1977) A
quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herba-
ceous vegetation. Journal of Ecology, 65, 759–791.
Anderson, G. (2009) The impact of tillage practices and crop residue (stubble)
retention in the cropping system of Western Australia. Western Australia
Department of Agriculture and Food. Bulletin No: 4786. pp. 1–93.
12 NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Andert, S., Bürger, J., Mutz, J.E. & Gerowitt, B. (2018) Patterns of pre-crop
glyphosate use and in-crop selective herbicide intensities in northern
Germany. European Journal of Agronomy, 97, 20–27. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.04.009
Andrew, I.K.S., Storkey, J. & Sparkes, D.L. (2015) A review of the potential
for competitive cereal cultivars as a tool in integrated weed manage-
ment. Weed Research, 55(3), 239–248. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1111/wre.12137
Antichi, D., Carlesi, S., Mazzoncini, M. & Bàrberi, P. (2022) Targeted timing
of hairy vetch cover crop termination with roller crimper can eliminate
glyphosate requirements in no-till sunflower. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 42(5), 87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13593-022-00815-2
Antier, C., Kudsk, P., Reboud, X., Ulber, L., Baret, P.V. & Messéan, A.
(2020) Glyphosate use in the European agricultural sector and a frame-
work for its further monitoring. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14),
5682. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145682
Aronsson, H., Ringselle, B., Andersson, L. & Bergkvist, G. (2015) Combining
mechanical control of couch grass (Elymus repens L.) with reduced till-
age in early autumn and cover crops to decrease nitrogen and phos-
phorus leaching. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 102(3), 383–396.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9712-7
Asaf, E., Rozenberg, G., Shulner, I., Eizenberg, H. & Lati, R.N. (2023) Evalua-
tion of finger weeder safety and efficacy for intra-row weed removal
in irrigated field crops. Weed Research, 63(2), 102–114. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12571
Ashford, D. & Reeves, D. (2003) Use of a mechanical roller-crimper as an
alternative kill method for cover crops. American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture, 18(1), 37–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1079/
AJAA200232
Baumgartner, K., Steenwerth, K.L. & Veilleux, L. (2007) Effects of organic
and conventional practices on weed control in a perennial cropping
system. Weed Science, 55(4), 352–358. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1614/ws-06-171
Beckie, H.J., Ashworth, M.B. & Flower, K.C. (2019) Herbicide resistance
management: recent developments and trends. Plants, 8(6), 161. Avail-
able from: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8060161
Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malézieux, E., Seufert, V. & Makowski, D. (2021)
Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Global Change Biology, 27(19), 4697–4710. Avail-
able from: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15747
Bitarafan, Z. & Andreasen, C. (2020) Seed retention of ten common weed
species at oat harvest reveals the potential for harvest weed seed con-
trol. Weed Research, 60(5), 343–352. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1111/wre.12438
Bloomer, D.J., Harrington, K.C., Ghanizadeh, H. & James, T.K. (2022) Micro
electric shocks control broadleaved and grass weeds. Agronomy, 12(9).
Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092039
Böcker, T., Britz, W. & Finger, R. (2018) Modelling the effects of a glypho-
sate ban on Weed Management in silage maize production. Ecological
Economics, 145, 182–193. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2017.08.027
Brandsæter, L.O., Mangerud, K., Helgheim, M. & Berge, T.W. (2017) Con-
trol of perennial weeds in spring cereals through stubble cultivation
and mouldboard ploughing during autumn or spring. Crop Protection,
98, 16–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.
03.006
Brandsæter, L.O., Mangerud, K., Andersson, L., Børresen, T., Brodal, G. &
Melander, B. (2020) Influence of mechanical weeding and fertilisation
on perennial weeds, fungal diseases, soil structure and crop yield in
organic spring cereals. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B: Soil
and Plant Science, 70(4), 318–332. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1080/09064710.2020.1728371
Cabrera-Pérez, C., Valencia-Gredilla, F., Royo-Esnal, A. & Recasens, J. (2022)
Organic mulches as an alternative to conventional under-vine weed
management in Mediterranean irrigated vineyards. Plants, 11(20), 2785.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11202785
Chauvel, B., Guillemin, J.P., Colbach, N. & Gasquez, J. (2001) Evaluation of
cropping systems for management of herbicide-resistant populations
of blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.). Crop Protection, 20(2),
127–137. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(00)
00065-X
Colbach, N. & Cordeau, S. (2022) Are no-till herbicide-free systems possi-
ble? A simulation study. Frontiers in Agronomy,4,1–21. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.823069
Coleman, G.R.Y., Stead, A., Rigter, M.P., Xu, Z., Johnson, D., Brooker, G.M.
et al. (2019) Using energy requirements to compare the suitability of
alternative methods for broadcast and site-specific weed control.
Weed Technology, 33, 633–650. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1017/wet.2019.32
Coleman, G.R.Y., Bender, A., Hu, K., Sharpe, S.M., Schumann, A.W.,
Wang, Z. et al. (2022) Weed detection to weed recognition: reviewing
50 years of research to identify constraints and opportunities for
large-scale cropping systems. Weed Technology, 36, 1–50. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2022.84
Collavo, A. & Sattin, M. (2014) First glyphosate-resistant Lolium spp. bio-
types found in a European annual arable cropping system also affected
by ACCase and ALS resistance. Weed Research, 54(4), 325–334. Avail-
able from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12082
Comont, D., Hicks, H., Crook, L., Hull, R., Cocciantelli, E., Hadfield, J. et al.
(2019) Evolutionary epidemiology predicts the emergence of glypho-
sate resistance in a major agricultural weed. New Phytologist, 223(3),
1584–1594. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15800
Cooray, A., Rejesus, R.M., Aglasan, S., Li, Z. & Woodley, A. (2023) The
impact of conservation tillage intensities on mean yields and yield risk.
Soil Security, 12, 100096. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soisec.2023.100096
Das, B., Kandpal, B. & Lembisana Devi, H. (2021) Cover crops for orchard
soil management. In: Islam, R. & Sherman, B. (Eds.) Cover crops and sus-
tainable agriculture. Boca Raton: Taylor Francis, CRC Press, pp. 147–
168. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003187301-10
Davis, A.S., Daedlow, D., Schutte, B.J. & Westerman, P.R. (2011) Temporal
scaling of episodic point estimates of seed predation to long-term pre-
dation rates. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 682–890. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00119.x
Donald, W.W. (2006) Mowing for weed management. In: Singh, H.P.,
Batish, D.R. & Kohli, R.K. (Eds.) Handbook of sustainable weed manage-
ment. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Food Products Press, pp. 329–372.
Duchene, O., Bathellier, C., Dumont, B., David, C. & Celette, F. (2023)
Weed community shifts during the aging of perennial intermediate
wheatgrass crops harvested for grain in arable fields. European Journal
of Agronomy, 143, 126721. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eja.2022.126721
Duke, S.O. & Powles, S.B. (2008) Mini-review glyphosate: a once-in-a-
century herbicide. Pest Management Science, 64, 319–325.
Duke, J.M., Johnston, R.J., Shober, A.L. & Liu, Z. (2022) Barriers to cover
crop adoption: evidence from parallel surveys in Maryland and Ohio.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 77(2), 198–211. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2022.00062
ECAF. (2020) Making sustainable agriculture real in Europe with conservation
agriculture: judicious use of glyphosate in integrated weed management.
Brussels, Belgium: ECAF.
ENDURE. (2023) Available at: http://www.endure-network.eu [Accessed
23 September 2023].
van Evert, F.K., Cockburn, M., Beniers, J.E. & Latsch, R. (2020) Weekly
defoliation controls, but does not kill broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusi-
folius). Weed Research, 60(2), 161–170. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1111/wre.12407
FAO. (2023) Conservation agriculture. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
conservation-agriculture [Accessed 23 September 2023].
NEVE ET AL.13
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Favrelière, E., Ronceux, A., Pernel, J. & Meynard, J.M. (2020) Nonchemical
control of a perennial weed, Cirsium arvense, in arable cropping sys-
tems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40, 31. Avail-
able from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00635-2
Fernández-Quintanilla, C., Peña, J.M., Andújar, D., Dorado, J., Ribeiro, A. &
L
opez-Granados, F. (2018) Is the current state of the art of weed mon-
itoring suitable for site-specific weed management in arable crops?
Weed Research, 58, 259–272. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1111/wre.12307
Fernando, M. & Shrestha, A. (2023) The potential of cover crops for weed
management: a sole tool or component of an integrated weed man-
agement system? Plants, 12, 752. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
3390/plants12040752
Feys, J., De Cauwer, B., Reheul, D., Sciffer, C., Clercx, S. & Palmans, S.
(2023) Impact of electrocution on shoot and tuber vitality of yellow
Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Agriculture (Switzerland), 13(3), 696.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030696
Finger, R., Möhring, N. & Kudsk, P. (2023) Glyphosate ban will have eco-
nomic impacts on European agriculture but effects are heterogenous
and uncertain. Communications Earth & Environmant, 4, 286. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00951-x
Fogliatto, S., Ferrero, A. & Vidotto, F. (2020) Current and future scenarios
of glyphosate use in Europe: are there alternatives? Advances in Agron-
omy, 163, 219–278. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.
2020.05.005
Fourie, J.C., Kruger, D.H.M. & Malan, A.P. (2015) Effect of management
practices applied to cover crops with biofumigation properties on
cover crop performance and weed control in a vineyard. South African
Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 36(1), 146–153. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.21548/36-1-947
Frasconi, C., Martelloni, L., Antichi, D., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M.,
Peruzzi, A. et al. (2019) Combining roller crimpers and flaming for the
termination of cover crops in herbicide-free no-till cropping systems.
PLoS One, 14(2), 1–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0211573
Gaba, S., Caneill, J., Nicolardot, B., Perronne, R. & Bretagnolle, V. (2018)
Crop competition in winter wheat has a higher potential than farming
practices to regulate weeds. Ecosphere, 9(10). Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2413
Ganji, E., Grenzdörffer, G. & Andert, S. (2023) Estimating the reduction in
cover crop vitality followed by Pelargonic acid application using drone
imagery. Agronomy, 13(2), 354. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
3390/agronomy13020354
Gerhards, R., Andújar Sanchez, D., Hamouz, P., Peteinatos, G.G.,
Christensen, S. & Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. (2022) Advances in site-
specific weed management in agriculture—a review. Weed Research,
62, 123–133. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12526
Goh, K.M. & Tutua, S.S. (2004) Effects of organic and plant residue quality
and orchard management practices on decomposition rates of resi-
dues. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 35(3–4), 441–
460. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120029724
Granatstein, D. & Sanchez, E. (2009) Research knowledge and needs for
orchard floor management in organic tree fruit systems. International
Journal of Fruit Science, 9(3), 257–281. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1080/15538360903245212
Granatstein, D., Andrews, P. & Groff, A. (2014) Productivity, economics, and
fruit and soil quality of weed management systems in commercial
organic orchards in Washington state, USA. Organic Agriculture,4(3),
197–207. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-014-0068-0
Gurusinghe, S., Haque, K.M.S., Weston, P.A., Brown, W.B. & Weston, L.A.
(2022) Impact of rotational sequence selection on weed seedbank
composition in Australian Broadacre crops. Agronomy, 12(2), 375.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020375
Hakansson, I., Steneberg, M. & Rydberg, T. (1998) Long-term experiments
with different depths of mouldboard ploughing in Sweden. Soil Tillage
Research, 46, 209–223. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0167-1987(98)00099-3
Hammermeister, A.M. (2016) Organic weed management in perennial
fruits. Scientia Horticulturae, 208, 28–42. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.02.004
Haramoto, E.R. & Gallandt, E.R. (2004) Brassica cover cropping for weed
management: a review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 19(4),
187–198. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1079/raf200490
Haring, S.C. & Hanson, B.D. (2022) Agronomic cover crop management
supports weed suppression and competition in California orchards.
Weed Science, 70(5), 595–602. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1017/wsc.2022.48
Heap. (2023) The international herbicide-resistant weed database. Avail-
able at: www.weedscience.org [Accessed 23 September 2023].
Isik, D., Dok, M., Ak, K., Macit, I., Demir, Z. & Mennan, H. (2014) Use of
cover crops for weed suppression in hazelnut (Corylus avellana l.) in
Turkey. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences,
79(2), 105–110.
Jacquet, F., Delame, N., Vita, J.L., Huyghe, C. & Reboud, X. (2021) The
micro-economic impacts of a ban on glyphosate and its replacement
with mechanical weeding in French vineyards. Crop Protection,150,
105778. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105778
Kanatas, P., Antonopoulos, N., Gazoulis, I. & Travlos, I.S. (2021) Screening
glyphosate-alternative weed control options in important perennial
crops. Weed Science, 69(6), 704–718. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1017/wsc.2021.55
Kleffmann Group. (2017) The economic relevance of glyphosate in
Germany. Available from: https://www.gkb-ev.de/publikationen/
2017/17-08-24-studie-engl.pdf
Klik, A. & Rosner, J. (2020) Long-term experience with conservation tillage
practices in Austria: impacts on soil erosion processes. Soil and
Tillage Research, 203, 104669. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.still.2020.104669
Kolören, O. & Uygur, F.N. (2007) Investigation on weed control methods
in citrus orchard in Çukurova region–Turkey. Asian Journal of Plant Sci-
ences, 6(4), 708–711.
Kornecki, T.S. (2020) Influence of recurrent rolling/crimping on cover crop
termination, soil strength and yield in No-till cotton. AgriEngineering,
2(4), 631–648. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering
2040042
Kornecki, T.S., Price, A.J., Raper, R.L. & Arriaga, F.J. (2009) New roller
crimper concepts for mechanical termination of cover crops in con-
servation agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(3),
165–173. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170509
002580
Krupinsky, J.M., Bailey, K.L., McMullen, M.P., Gossen, B.D. &
Turkington, T.K. (2002) Managing plant disease risk in diversified crop-
ping systems. Agronomy Journal, 94, 198–209. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.1980
Kudsk, P. & Mathiassen, S.K. (2020) Pesticide regulation in the European
Union and the glyphosate controversy. Weed Science, 68(3), 214–222.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2019.59
Kudsk, P., Sønderskov, M., Bonin, L., Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L., Jensen, J.E.,
Melander, B. et al. (2020) Iwmpraise –an EU horizon 2020 project
providing integrated weed management solutions to European
farmers. Outlooks on Pest Management, 31(4), 152–159. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1564/v31_aug_02
Lamichhane, J.R., Debaeke, P., Steinberg, C., You, M.P., Barbetti, M.J. &
Aubertot, J.N. (2018) Abiotic and biotic factors affecting crop seed
germination and seedling emergence: a conceptual framework. Plant
and Soil, 432, 1–28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-
018-3780-9
Liebman, M. & Dyck, E. (1993) Crop rotation and intercropping strategies
for weed management. Ecological Applications,3,92–122. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795
14 NEVE ET AL.
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Lindstrom, M.J., Nelson, W.W. & Schumacher, T.E. (1992) Quantifying till-
age erosion rates due to moldboard plowing. Soil and Tillage Research,
24(3), 243–255. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987
(92)90090-X
Lisek, J. (2014) Possibilities and limitations of weed management in fruit
crops of the temperate climate zone. Journal of Plant Protection
Research, 54, 318–326. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2478/jppr-
2014-0048
Loddo, D., Jagarapu, K.K., Strati, E., Trespidi, G., Nikoli
c, N., Masin, R. et al.
(2023) Assessing herbicide efficacy of Pelargonic acid on several weed
species. Agronomy, 13(6), 1511. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
3390/agronomy13061511
L
opez-Urrea, R., Sánchez, J.M., Montoro, A., Mañas, F. & Intrigliolo, D.S.
(2020) Effect of using pruning waste as an organic mulching on a drip-
irrigated vineyard evapotranspiration under a semi-arid climate. Agri-
cultural and Forest Meteorology, 291, 108064. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108064
Lötjönen, T. & Salonen, J. (2016) Intensifying bare fallow strategies to
control Elymus repens in organic soils. Agricultural and Food Science,
25(3), 153–163. Available from: https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.
55533
Lutman, P.J.W., Moss, S.R., Cook, S. & Welham, S.J. (2013) A review of the
effects of crop agronomy on the management of Alopecurus myosur-
oides.Weed Research, 53(5), 299–313. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1111/wre.12024
Machleb, J., Peteinatos, G.G., Kollenda, B.L., Andújar, D. & Gerhards, R.
(2020) Sensor-based mechanical weed control: present state and pros-
pects. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 176, 105638. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105638
MacLaren, C., Swanepoel, P., Bennett, J., Wright, J. & Dehnen-Schmutz, K.
(2019) Cover crop biomass production is more important than diver-
sity for weed suppression. Crop Science, 59(2), 733–748. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.05.0329
Maggi, F., la Cecilia, D., Tang, F.H.M. & McBratney, A. (2020) The global
environmental hazard of glyphosate use. Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 717, 137167. Available from: 10.101a6/j.scitotenv.2020.
137167
Martinelli, R., Rufino-Jr, L.R., Desiderio, D.R., Alcántara-De La Cruz, R.,
Monquero, P.A. & de Azevedo, F.A. (2022) The impacts of ecological
mowing combined with conventional mechanical or herbicide manage-
ment on weeds in orange orchards. Weed Research, 62(6), 431–445.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12557
Mas, M.T., Poggio, S.L. & Verdú, A.M.C. (2007) Weed community structure
of mandarin orchards under conventional and integrated management
in northern Spain. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 119(3–4),
305–310. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.07.016
Mauro, R.P., Anastasi, U., Lombardo, S., Pandino, G., Pesce, R.,
Restuccia, A. et al. (2015) Cover crops for managing weeds, soil chemi-
cal fertility and nutritional status of organically grown orange orchard
in Sicily. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 10(2), 101–104. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2015.641
Melander, B., Munier-Jolain, N., Charles, R., Wirth, J., Schwarz, J., van der
Weide, R. et al. (2013) European perspectives on the adoption of non-
chemical weed management in reduced-tillage systems for arable
crops. Weed Technology, 27(1), 231–240. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1614/wt-d-12-00066.1
Melander, B., Nørremark, M. & Kristensen, E.F. (2013) Combining mechan-
ical rhizome removal and cover crops for Elytrigia repens control in
organic barley systems. Weed Research, 53(6), 461–469. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12042
van der Meulen, A. & Chauhan, B.S. (2017) A review of weed management
in wheat using crop competition. Crop Protection, 95, 38–44. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.08.004
Miñarro, M. (2012) Weed communities in apple orchards under organic and
conventional fertilization and tree-row management. Crop Protection,39,
89–96. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.04.002
Miville, D. & Leroux, G.D. (2018) Rolled winter rye-hairy vetch cover crops
for weed control in no-till pumpkin. Weed Technology, 32(3), 251–259.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2018.9
Montanaro, G., Xiloyannis, C., Nuzzo, V. & Dichio, B. (2017) Orchard man-
agement, soil organic carbon and ecosystem services in Mediterranean
fruit tree crops. Scientia Horticulturae, 217, 92–101. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.012
Morselli, N., Puglia, M., Pedrazzi, S., Muscio, A., Tartarini, P. & Allesina, G.
(2022) Energy, environmental and feasibility evaluation of tractor-
mounted biomass gasifier for flame weeding. Sustainable Energy Tech-
nologies and Assessments, 50, 101823. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2021.101823
Moss, S.R., Perryman, S.A.M. & Tatnell, L.V. (2007) Managing herbicide-
resistant blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides): theory and practice.
Weed Technology, 21(2), 300–309. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
1614/wt-06-087.1
Navarro-Mir
o, D., Blanco-Moreno, J.M., Ciaccia, C., Chamorro, L.,
Testani, E., Kristensen, H.L. et al. (2019) Agroecological service crops
managed with roller crimper reduce weed density and weed species
richness in organic vegetable systems across Europe. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 39(6), 1–13. Available from: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13593-019-0597-8
Olsen, J., Kristensen, L., Weiner, J. & Griepentrog, H.W. (2005) Increased
density and spatial uniformity increase weed suppression by spring
wheat. Weed Research, 45(4), 316–321. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2005.00456.x
Peruzzi, A., Gagliardi, L., Fontanelli, M., Frasconi, C., Raffaelli, M. &
Sportelli, M. (2023) Continuous mowing for Erigeron canadensis
L. Control in vineyards. Agronomy, 13(2), 409. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020409
Ranaldo, M., Carlesi, S., Costanzo, A. & Bàrberi, P. (2020) Functional diver-
sity of cover crop mixtures enhances biomass yield and weed suppres-
sion in a Mediterranean agroecosystem. Weed Research, 60(1), 96–
108. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12388
Rasmussen, J., Azim, S. & Nielsen, J. (2021) Pre-harvest weed mapping of Cir-
sium arvense L. based on free satellite imagery –theimportanceofweed
aggregation and image resolution. European Journal of Agronomy,130,
126373. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126373
Reicosky, D.C. & Archer, D.W. (2007) Moldboard plow tillage depth and
short-term carbon dioxide release. Soil and Tillage Research, 94(1),
109–121. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.07.004
Restuccia, A., Scavo, A., Lombardo, S., Pandino, G., Fontanazza, S.,
Anastasi, U. et al. (2020) Long-term effect of cover crops on species
abundance and diversity of weed flora. Plants, 9(11), 1506. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111506
Riemens, M., Sønderskov, M., Moonen, A.C., Storkey, J. & Kudsk, P. (2022)
An integrated weed management framework: a pan-European per-
spective. European Journal of Agronomy, 133, 126433. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126443
Ringselle, B., Bertholtz, E., Magnuski, E., Brandsæter, L.O., Mangerud, K. &
Bergkvist, G. (2018) Rhizome fragmentation by vertical disks reduces
Elymus repens growth and benefits Italian ryegrass-white clover crops.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, 1178. Available from: https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpls.2017.02243
Ringselle, B., de Cauwer, B., Salonen, J. & Soukup, J. (2020) A review
of non-chemical management of couch grass (Elymus repens). Agronomy,
10, 1178. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081178
Ringselle, B., Brandsæter, L.O., Mangerud, K. & Bergkvist, G. (2023) Verti-
cal rhizome disking to reduce Elymus repens (quackgrass) abundance in
grass-clover leys. Crop Protection, 172, 106301. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106301
Rosario-Lebron, A., Leslie, A.W., Yurchak, V.L., Chen, G. & Hooks, C.R.R.
(2019) Can winter cover crop termination practices impact weed sup-
pression, soil moisture, and yield in no-till soybean [Glycine max (L.)
Merr.]? Crop Protection, 116, 132–141. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cropro.2018.10.020
NEVE ET AL.15
13653180, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12624 by Universitat de Lleida, Wiley Online Library on [12/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sardana, V., Mahajan, G., Jabran, K. & Chauhan, B.S. (2017) Role of compe-
tition in managing weeds: an introduction to the special issue. Crop
Protection, 95, 1–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.
2016.09.011
Scavo, A., Restuccia, A., Abbate, C., Lombardo, S., Fontanazza, S.,
Pandino, G. et al. (2021) Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping
enhances soil fertility and weed seedbank dynamics in a Mediterra-
nean apricot orchard. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(6), 1–
16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00721-z
Schreier, H., Bish, M. & Bradley, K.W. (2022) The impact of electrocution
treatments on weed control and weed seed viability in soybean. Weed
Technology, 36(4), 481–489. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/
wet.2022.56
Schwartz-Lazaro, L.M., Gage, K.L. & Chauhan, B.S. (2021) Editorial: weed
biology and ecology in agroecosystems. Frontiers in Agronomy,3,
730074. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2021.730074
Seavers, G.P. & Wright, K.J. (1999) Crop canopy development and struc-
ture influence weed suppression. Weed Research, 39(4), 319–328.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.1999.00148.x
Sharma, G., Shrestha, S., Kunwar, S. & Tseng, T.M. (2021) Crop diversifica-
tion for improved weed management: a review. Agriculture (Switzerland),
11, 461. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050461
Shrestha, A., Kaan Kurtural, S., Fidelibus, M.W., Dervishian, G. &
Konduru, S. (2013) Efficacy and cost of cultivators, steam, or an
organic herbicide for weed control in organic vineyards in the San Joa-
quin Valley of California. HortTechnology, 23(1), 99–108. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.21273/horttech.23.1.99
Soriano, M.A.,
´
Alvarez, S., Landa, B.B. & G
omez, J.A. (2014) Soil properties
in organic olive orchards following different weed management in a
rolling landscape of Andalusia, Spain. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 29(1), 83–91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1742170512000361
Sportelli, M., Frasconi, C., Gagliardi, L., Fontanelli, M., Raffaelli, M.,
Sbrana, M. et al. (2023) Testing of roller-crimper-and-undercutting-
blade-equipped prototype for plants termination. AgriEngineering, 5(1),
182–192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering
5010013
Stefanelli, D., Zoppolo, R.J., Perry, R.L. & Weibel, F. (2009) Organic orchard
floor management systems for apple effect on rootstock performance
in the midwestern United States. HortScience, 44(2), 263–267. Avail-
able from: https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.44.2.263
Storkey, J. & Neve, P. (2018) What good is weed diversity? Weed Research,
58(4), 239–243. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12310
Tamburini, G., Bommarco, R., Wanger, T.C., Kremen, C., Van der
Heijden, M., Liebman, M. et al. (2020) Agricultural diversification pro-
motes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci-
ence Advances, 6, eaba1715. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.aba1715
Teasdale, J.R., Brandsæter, L.O., Calegari, A. & Skora Neto, F. (2007) Cover
crops and weed management. In: Upadhyaya, M.K. & Blackshaw, R.E.
(Eds.) Non-chemical weed management. Principles, concepts, and technol-
ogy. Cambridge, MA: CABI, pp. 49–64.
Thomsen, M.G., Brandsæter, L.O. & Fykse, H. (2011) Sensitivity of Cirsium
arvense to simulated tillage and competition. Acta Agriculturae Scandi-
navica Section B Soil and Plant Science, 61, 693–700. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2010.543142
Thomsen, M.G., Mangerud, K., Riley, H. & Brandsæter, L.O. (2015) Method,
timing and duration of bare fallow for the control of Cirsium arvense
and other creeping perennials. Crop Protection, 77, 31–37. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.05.020
Travlos, I.S., Kontopoulou, C.-K., Kanatas, P.J., Panagopoulou, M. &
Bilalis, D.J. (2017) Cover crops against herbicide-resistant invasive
weeds. Scientific Papers. Series A. Agronomy, LX, 425–429.
Valencia-Gredilla, F., Royo-Esnal, A., Juárez-Escario, A. & Recasens, J.
(2020) Different ground vegetation cover management systems to
manage Cynodon dactylon in an irrigated vineyard. Agronomy, 10(6).
Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060908
Van Eerd, L.L., Chahal, I., Peng, Y. & Awrey, J.C. (2023) Influence of cover
crops at the four spheres: a review of ecosystem services, potential
barriers, and future directions for North America. Science of the Total
Environment, 858, 159990. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2022.159990
Volakakis, N., Kabourakis, E.M., Rempelos, L., Kiritsakis, A. & Leifert, C.
(2022) Effect of different cover crops on suppression of the weed
Oxalis pes-caprae L., soil nutrient availability, and the performance of
table olive trees ‘Kalamon’cv. In Crete, Greece. Agronomy, 12(10),
2523. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102523
Walsh, M.J. & Powles, S.B. (2022) Harvest weed seed control: impact on
weed management in Australian grain production systems and poten-
tial role in global cropping systems. Crop and Pasture Science, 73, 313–
324. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1071/CP21647
Walsh, M., Ouzman, J., Newman, P., Powles, S. & Llewellyn, R. (2017) High
levels of adoption indicate that harvest weed seed control is now an
established weed control practice in Australian cropping. Weed Technol-
ogy, 31(3), 341–347. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2017.9
Walsh, M.J., Squires, C.C., Coleman, G.R.Y., Widderick, M.J.,
McKiernan, A.B., Chauhan, B.S. et al. (2020) Tillage based, site-specific
weed control for conservation cropping systems. Weed Technology,
34(5), 704–710. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2020.34
Weigel, M.M., Andert, S. & Gerowitt, B. (2023) Monitoring patch expan-
sion amends to evaluate the effects of non-chemical control on the
creeping perennial Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. in a spring wheat crop.
Agronomy, 13(6), 1474. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy13061474
Weisberger, D., Nichols, V. & Liebman, M. (2019) Does diversifying crop
rotations suppress weeds? A meta-analysis. PLoS One, 14(7), e0219847.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219847
Westerman, P., Hofman, A., Vet, L. & van der Werf, W. (2003) Relative
importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigeaic weed seed
predation in organic cereal fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-
ment, 95, 417–425. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-
8809(02)00224-4
Woodburn, A.T. (2000) Glyphosate: production, pricing and use world-
wide. Pest Management Science, 56, 309–312. Available from: https://
doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1526-4998(200004)56:4<309::AID-PS143>3.0.
CO;2-C
Wynn, S. & Webb, E. (2022) Impact assessment of the loss of glyphosate
within the EU: