Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
132
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
132 results for “weed control”
Swiss public's acceptance and sustainability perceptions of food produced with chemical, digital and mechanical weed control measures and the influence of information source on technology perception in agriculture
<p><span>This data was obtained from an online survey conducted with the Swiss public from the two biggest language regions (German and French) in Switzerland. The survey was conducted in February 2023. Participants were recruited through a professional panel provider and quotas were used for age, gender and language region. The final sample contained </span><span>542 respondents. </span><span>In the first part of the survey, respondents provided basic sociodemographic information. In the second part, their sustainability perceptions regarding four different weed management practices (full-surface spraying, hoeing machine, spot spraying and precise spraying) were investigated. Respondents were then assigned to one of five information source groups, in which information on a hoeing and a milking robot was presented, using 5 different information sources (male/female farmer, male/female scientist, no source). Technology perception was assessed using several questions and aspects. Finally, respondents answered several questions assessing their attitudes towards the perception of farmers, food technology neophobia, chemophobia and the importance of naturalness. The survey can be used and adapted to different contents, aiming to investigate public perception of smart farming technologies and the influence of information sources on technology perception. </span></p>
Machine Demonstration: mechanical weed control in soybeans
<p>This video was provided by the EU funded project Legumes Translated, which supports the production and use of grain legumes in Europe. On the project website <a href="https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=Bm_5JluTpc0&event=video_description&redir_token=Sf_vP1RmyENuQtEbJbo_0YXcxpN8MTU3ODQxNTk2OUAxNTc4MzI5NTY5&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legumestranslated.eu">https://www.legumestranslated.eu</a> you will find more information and practical guidelines on the production and use of grain legumes. More Info: «Mechanical weed control in organic soy cultivation - how and when to use which machine?» <a href="https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=Bm_5JluTpc0&event=video_description&redir_token=Sf_vP1RmyENuQtEbJbo_0YXcxpN8MTU3ODQxNTk2OUAxNTc4MzI5NTY5&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bioattualita.ch%2Fcoltura%2Fa">https://www.bioattualita.ch/coltura/a</a>... Weed control is one of the main factors of economic success in organic soybean production. This video presents the following machines for mechanical weed control: 1. Weeding between and in the rows MATER Macc Unica-F Einböck Chopstar Garford Robocrop Schmotzer 2. Machines working row-independent Treffler TS 620/3M Einböck Aerostar-Rotation Carre Rotanet</p>
Figure 29 in A remarkable new species of Himalusa Pace from Thailand (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae): phytophagous aleocharine beetle with potential for bio-control of skunkvine-related weeds in the United States
Figure 29. Himalusa thailandensis: a larva that emerged from a swollen petiole of Paederia sp. leaf.
FIGURE 1 in Biological control of weeds in Australia: the last 120 years
FIGURE 1 Number of weed biological control agent releases per decade (known deliberate releases only).
FIGURE 2 in Biological control of weeds in Australia: the last 120 years
FIGURE 2 Releases of plant pathogens per decade for weed biological control (known deliberate releases only).
Figure 11 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 11. The RootWave™ handheld electric weeder, the RootWave™ Pro (Table 1). Image sourced from T. Archer (personal communication, April 2, 2022).
Figure 10 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 10. The XPower electric weed control machine with the XP300 applicator, developed by Zasso™ (Table 1). Images sourced from Zasso Group AG (2021a).
Figure 7 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 7. crop.zone and Nufarm's electrochemical weeding machine, NUCROP (Table 1). Image sourced from D. Vandenhirtz (personal communication, September 10, 2021).
Figure 8 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 8. The XPower electric weed control machine with an XPS applicator, developed by Zasso™ (Table 1). Image sourced from Zasso Group AG (2021i).
Figure 9 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 9. The XPower electric weed control machine with the XPU applicator, developed by Zasso™ (Table 1). Images sourced from Zasso Group AG (2021g).
Figure 6 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 6. The Weed Zapper™ electric weed control machine, produced by Old School Manufacturing (Table 1). The image includes the Annihilator Tractor Series (right, 12R30 model) and the Terminator Self-Propelled Series (left, T3 model), each fitted with flexible front applicator booms of 9.1 and 18.3 m (30 and 60 feet), respectively. The image is sourced from B. Kroeger and N. Kroeger (personal communication, March 25, 2022).
Figure 1 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 1. Schematic representation of electric weed control technology using the spark-discharge method; produced by Guanhao Cheng from the information presented in Diprose and Benson (1984), Savchuk and Bayev (1975), Slesarev (1972), and Wilson and Anderson (1981). The process starts when the plant comes into close proximity to or contact with the electrode (ti). Electricity is then transferred through the plant's foliage and into the roots before dissipating into the soil. The application is grounded by the groundcontact device (GCD). Each object through which the current passes is depicted as having individual resistance, such as the target vegetation (Rv), soil and machinery (Rs), or parallel objects (Rp). This continues over time until the final point of electrode–plant contact (tf). The efficacy of weed control depends on contact time (tc), which is the duration of the electrode's contact with the plant. Contact time is determined by the electrode's effective contact surface and the distance traveled while the electrode is transferring the current to or in contact with the plant (Se).
Figure 5 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 5. The electric weed control machine, the Lightning Weeder, developed by Lasco (Table 1). Image sourced from Lasco (2021).
Figure 4 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 4. Representative diagram of the theoretical distribution of maximum electrical power (Ep max) during electric weed control application in a constant application direction under different weed population density scenarios. In the scenario where only one plant (plant one; left) is initially in contact with the electrode(s) (ti), Ep max is delivered to the plant until the final point of plant–electrode contact (tf). However, when multiple plant contacts occur (plants one, two, and three; right), Ep max is divided among each plant in contact at that time. Note that this diagram is not to scale and was produced by Guanhao Cheng from the information presented in Vigneault and Benoit (2001).
Figure 2 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 2. Schematic representation of electric weed control technology using the continuous electrode–plant contact method; produced by Guanhao Cheng and adapted from Vigneault and Benoit (2001) and Bauer et al. (2020). The process starts when the electrode initially contacts the plant (ti). Electricity is then transferred through the plant's foliage and into the roots and soil before returning to the machine via a ground-contact device, forming a complete electrical circuit. Each object through which the current passes is depicted as having individual resistance, such as the target vegetation (Rv), soil and machinery (Rs), or parallel objects (Rp). The circuit continues over time until the final point of electrode–plant contact (tf). The efficacy of weed control depends on contact time (tc), which is the duration of the electrode's contact with the plant. Contact time is determined by the electrode's effective contact surface, the distance traveled while the electrode is in contact with the plant (Se), which will always be greater than the electrode's actual contact surface (Sa).
Figure 3 in Exploring the potential of electric weed control: a review
Figure 3. Representative diagram of the theoretical relationship between electrical flow and plant electrical resistance (Rv) when using electric weed control measures. This diagram is not to scale and was produced by Guanhao Cheng from the information presented in Diprose et al. (1980) and Diprose and Benson (1984).
Figure 2 in Adaptations in wild radish (ROphOnus rOphOnistrum) flowering time, Part 2: Harvest weed seed control shortens flowering by twelve days
Figure 2. Changes in the number of seeds m−2 (A, D, G), the probability of seed capture by harvest weed seed control (HWSC) (B, E, H), and days to first flower (DFF) (C, F, I). (A–C) Varying herbicide efficiencies, in the absence of HWSC, over 30 yr. (D–F) When knockdown herbicide was less effective (-ρ-), when postemergence herbicide was less effective (-○-), and when both herbicides were effective, without HWSC (___) over 20 yr. (G–I) Model used management system P and started with either a smaller seedbank (___) or a larger seedbank (-○-) over 20 yr.
Figure 3 in Critical period of weed control in an interseeded system of corn and alfalfa
Figure 3. Interseeded alfalfa total dry biomass yield as a percentage of the weed-free control over the critical duration of weedy treatments averaged over corn hybrid (pendulum and upright) for a 2-yr study (2020–2021). Interseeded corn and alfalfa were established in 2019 and 2020,(establishment years),and alfalfa was harvested four times the following season, in 2020 and 2021. In weedy interseeded treatments, weeds emerged with the crop and were then removed at different dates, creating the critical timing of weed removal (green circles). In weed-free interseeded treatments, weeds were added later in the crop, creating the critical weed free period (black triangles). An interseeded untreated and a weed-free check were included within these treatments. The critical period times are based on a 5% acceptable yield loss and are denoted by the dashed vertical lines, averaged over years and effect of corn hybrid; the boxes denote the SE for each of the growing degree–day estimates. Points represent observed mean values; lines represent the fitted models calculated using the DRC package in R (R Core Team 2020).
Figure 2 in Critical period of weed control in an interseeded system of corn and alfalfa
Figure 2. Interseeded alfalfa dry biomass yield for the first cutting as a percentage of the weed-free interseeded corn and alfalfa control over the critical duration of weedy treatments averaged over corn hybrid (pendulum and upright), for a 2-yr study (2020–2021). Interseeded corn and alfalfa were established in 2019 and 2020 (establishment years), and alfalfa was harvested the following season, in 2020 and 2021. In weedy treatments, weeds emerged with the crop and were then removed at different dates, creating the critical timing of weed removal (green circles).In weed-free interseeded treatments,weeds were added later in the crop, creating the critical weed-free period (black triangles). An interseeded untreated and a weed-free check were included within these treatments. The critical period times are based on a 5% acceptable yield loss and are denoted by the dashed vertical lines, averaged over years and effect of corn hybrid; the boxes denote the SE for each of the growing degree–day estimates. Points represent observed mean values; lines represent the fitted models calculated using the DRC package in R (R Core Team 2020).
Figure 1 in Critical period of weed control in an interseeded system of corn and alfalfa
Figure 1. Interseeded corn silage dry biomass yield as a percentage of the weed-free interseeded corn and alfalfa control over the critical duration of weedy treatments with differing leaf architecture, pendulum (black circles) or upright (green triangles), for 2019 (A) and 2020 (B). In weedy treatments, weeds emerged with the crop and were then removed at different dates,creating the critical timing of weed removal (CTWR;dashed line).In weed-free interseeded treatments,weeds were added later in the crop,creating the critical weed-free period (CWFP; solid line). An interseeded untreated and a weed-free check were included within these treatments. The CTWR based on a 5% acceptable yield loss, averaged over hybrids, is denoted by the dashed vertical line (black); the boxes denote the SEs of those estimates. The CWFP estimates are not shown, because they were greater than the harvest date. Points represent observed mean values; lines represent the fitted models calculated using the DRC package in R (R Core Team 2020).
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.