TY - JOUR
T1 - Low Risk of Indirect Crop Damage From Low-Energy Electric Weeding of White Goosefoot (Chenopodium album) and White Mustard (Sinapis alba)
AU - Ringselle, Björn
AU - Pourazari, Fereshteh
AU - Stankovic, Milos
AU - Fogelberg, Fredrik
AU - Markovic, Dimitrije
AU - Ninkovic, Velemir
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 The Author(s). Weed Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Weed Research Society.
PY - 2026/3/1
Y1 - 2026/3/1
N2 - Agriculture's reliance on herbicides and tillage must be reduced. Electrical weed control could be an alternative, especially if it can be used in both the inter-row and intra-row. However, there is a lack of studies on the risk of indirect damage when using electrical weed control near crop plants. To address this knowledge gap, three outdoor pot experiments were conducted in 2024 and 2025 in Uppsala, Sweden, using two annual weeds (Chenopodium album in 2024 and Sinapis alba in 2025) and two crops (potato in 2024 and sugar beet in both years) as model species. The experiments studied whether indirect damage occurred in crops or neighbouring weeds when low-energy electricity was applied for 0.2 s to nearby weeds. Moreover, the experiments studied if the level of indirect damage was influenced by factors such as relative distance to the treated weed, crop sensitivity, electrode placement (both on weed or one in soil), leaves touching and number of treated weed plants. Crop mortality was extremely low during all experiments (two out of 445 sugar beet plants died and zero out of 126 potato plants) and there was no indication of indirect damage to crop plants, even when treating multiple weed plants 0–3 cm away from sugar beets around the cotyledon to two-leaf stage (26–30 days after sowing (DAS)). Chenopodium album mortality declined faster in sugar beet (91%, 65% and 20% when treated at 26, 33 and 46 DAS) than in potato (100%, 88% and 74%). Sinapis alba had lower mortality when both electrodes were placed on the plant (86%, 64% and 0% when treated at 30, 40 and 49 DAS) than when one was in the soil (93%, 98% and 9%). This was primarily due to a higher likelihood of reshooting below the treatment point when both electrodes were on the plant. In conclusion, low-energy electricity applied for 0.2 s can be used for intra-row weeding with a very low risk of indirect damage to crops, even right after emergence of sensitive crops like sugar beet. Efficacy of electrical application is influenced by crop competition and electrode placement.
AB - Agriculture's reliance on herbicides and tillage must be reduced. Electrical weed control could be an alternative, especially if it can be used in both the inter-row and intra-row. However, there is a lack of studies on the risk of indirect damage when using electrical weed control near crop plants. To address this knowledge gap, three outdoor pot experiments were conducted in 2024 and 2025 in Uppsala, Sweden, using two annual weeds (Chenopodium album in 2024 and Sinapis alba in 2025) and two crops (potato in 2024 and sugar beet in both years) as model species. The experiments studied whether indirect damage occurred in crops or neighbouring weeds when low-energy electricity was applied for 0.2 s to nearby weeds. Moreover, the experiments studied if the level of indirect damage was influenced by factors such as relative distance to the treated weed, crop sensitivity, electrode placement (both on weed or one in soil), leaves touching and number of treated weed plants. Crop mortality was extremely low during all experiments (two out of 445 sugar beet plants died and zero out of 126 potato plants) and there was no indication of indirect damage to crop plants, even when treating multiple weed plants 0–3 cm away from sugar beets around the cotyledon to two-leaf stage (26–30 days after sowing (DAS)). Chenopodium album mortality declined faster in sugar beet (91%, 65% and 20% when treated at 26, 33 and 46 DAS) than in potato (100%, 88% and 74%). Sinapis alba had lower mortality when both electrodes were placed on the plant (86%, 64% and 0% when treated at 30, 40 and 49 DAS) than when one was in the soil (93%, 98% and 9%). This was primarily due to a higher likelihood of reshooting below the treatment point when both electrodes were on the plant. In conclusion, low-energy electricity applied for 0.2 s can be used for intra-row weeding with a very low risk of indirect damage to crops, even right after emergence of sensitive crops like sugar beet. Efficacy of electrical application is influenced by crop competition and electrode placement.
KW - electro-weeding
KW - electrocution
KW - electrophysical
KW - integrated weed management
KW - IPM
KW - microshocks
KW - regenerative agriculture
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105033851813
UR - https://res.slu.se/id/publ/3eb46e08-f8b1-4eb5-aa3a-6b1b66499c44
U2 - 10.1111/wre.70083
DO - 10.1111/wre.70083
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:105033851813
SN - 0043-1737
VL - 66
JO - Weed Research
JF - Weed Research
IS - 2
M1 - e70083
ER -