EWRS Site specific weed management working group - Header

3rd workshop meeting - Spain 2003
Madrid, 9 - 11 April
Draft content of the workshop

ACTIVITY 1. Joint paper

Subscribed expressions of interest 
Francisca Lopez-Granados, Spain
Els Vrindts, Belgium
Svend Christensen, Denmark
Henning Nordmeyer, Germany

Motivation: We believe that there is a need for a joint paper that describes the potential of SSWM in Europe. Further it can be used nationally to convince farmers and industries to adopt SSWM and hopefully motivate funding of research. 

Proposed title: Potential economic savings and environmental benefits of SSWM in Europe. Authors are the contributors. We would like to make the first draft but if anybody wants to do this job they are welcome to take over. 

Journal: Weed Research or Precision Agriculture 


1. Background that describes the main objectives of SSWM - including an example how you varied weed control in old days, reviewing different decision support systems and spatial implements developed or being developed for SSWM.. 

2. Materials and methods that reviews the different locations 

3. Results. Tables with savings in different experiments - if possible the tables should include sampling size, grid, data/growth stage of emerge. 

4. Discussion of the results: 

Saving/benefit for the farmer and the society/environment in different crops, cropping systems including mechanical weeding as well as patch spraying

Perspective of advanced spraying systems, a simple approaches like weed management zones, 

Advantages and disadvantages of the weed mapping - map based treatments versus on-line detection and spraying

Biological aspects of avoiding weed resistance

Management aspects like improved efficacy, tractability/prescribed spraying. 

- Relating to Activity 1, I have received field reports from Els Vrindt (one report on sugar beets and two reports on maize crops), Francisca Lopez-Granados (2 reports on research in sunflower), and 5 reports on cereal crops in Denmark. Further, Karl Heinz Dammer, Germany, and Henning Nordmeyer, Germany, have sent short reports on the results on patch spraying and weed mapping in more than 10 fields with different crops. 

This is a good start, but I think we need more reports to get a full "picture" of the potential economic savings and environmental benefits of SSWM in Europe. I therefore invite everybody to send reports following the outline of the attached example before 1. March 2003. I suggest that you present the reports in Madrid and discuss at the meeting how to publish the results.


Task 1.1. Mail to the working group with a draft of the content of the paper and an outline for reporting on SSWM. Reports - one report per field and year - should be send before 1 November 2002.

Task 1.2. Gathering the contributions in tables and writing the first draft of the paper. Deadline 1 December.2002.

Task 1.3. Comments and suggestion. Deadline 31 December 2002. 

Task 1.4. Revised draft of the paper. Deadline 1 February 2003.

Task 1.5. Authors meeting in Madrid 6-8 February 2003. 

ACTIVITY 2. Joint protocol

Subscriped expressions of interest 
Francisca Lopez-Granados, Spain
Jordi Izquierdo, Spain
Sanne Heijting, The Netherlands
Els Vrindts, Belgium
Loius Assement, France
Therese With Berge, Norway
Svend Christensen, Denmark 

Motivation: There is a need to discuss and perhaps standardize how we measure weeds spatially. We believe that it is an important element because if each group of scientists develop its own "standard" we hinder an open competition among several industries developing inexpensive technologies for SSWM. 

Activity 2 was thought of as an introduction of how to make a "standard" for weed measurement. It could be done manually, e.g. for the sampling procedure, the surveying or the scouting procedure, or automatic monitoring with remote or near ground sensors or computer vision could be used. Further, I think it could be very valuable to get an overview of the resolution of the measurement – both temporally and spatially. Other information of, for instance, the level of species information would also be important in our discussion of "standardizing" the measurement. 

I still believe that this is a very important issue, because we cannot expect that the weed control technology can manage so many different approaches without a minimum of standardization. I suggest that everybody prepares a diagram with a flow chart of his own method, including units of the methods. In the first proposal of this activity, I suggested to run the model on the joint dataset. I do not think it is important to use the joint dataset. I therefore suggest that you run a model on your own data. In order to organize the meeting, please commit yourself to present your method by sending a flow chart of your method together with a short description by 1 March 2003.


Task 2.1. Present your methods in Madrid 9 - 11 April 2003

Task 2.2. Run your model on the dataset and present your results in Madrid 6-8 February 2003


Subscribed expressions of interest 
Jordi Izquierdo, Spain
Therese With Berge, Norway
Henning Nordmeyer, Germany 

Motivation: Several models are available for understanding/describe spatial processes, effect of scaling etc. and different methods are also used for weed mapping, e.g. semivariogram and kriging. It would be valuable to compare the results of the runs with different models and methods - to derive their field of application.

Relating to activity 3, I enclose a dataset from Denmark together with a field report. Of course, we use more datasets, but the main purpose was to evaluate different methods. Jordi Izquierdo and Therese With Berge have expressed their interest. I will encourage other members of the group to join this activity. Personally, I will ask some colleagues to help me. If you are interested in this activity, please send me an email as soon as possible. 


Task 3.1. A dataset is stored on the website. Deadline 1 December 2002.

Task 3.2. Run your model on the dataset and present your results in Madrid 9 - 11 Madrid 2003


Subscribed expressions of interest 
Kirsten Semb Tørresen 
Svend Christensen, Denmark

Motivation: Just as activity 3, the motivation is to compare different decision algorithms/models - to derive their field of application. 

Relating to activity 4, the same dataset as in activity 3 is suggested as joint dataset. Kirsten Semb Tørresen and I would like to apply some decision algorithms to the dataset. I am aware that it may be difficult to apply different decision algorithm/models to the dataset. Alternative suggestions or approaches are welcome as soon as possible.


Task 4.1. A dataset is stored on the website. Deadline 1 December 2002.

Task 4.2. Run your model on the dataset and present your results in Madrid 9 - 11 Madrid 2003


Subscribed expressions of interest 
Cesar Fernandez Quintanilla, Spain
Maria C.Garcia-Alegre, Spain
Karl-Heinz Dammer, Germany
Lisa Rew, USA
Loius Assement, France
Yury Blagoveschensky, Russia
Vera Samsonova, Russia
Jose L. Gonzalez-Andujar, Spain 

Motivation: Many research projects fail to extend their results effectively to the farming community. Therefore there is a need to ensure that research findings are appropriate for adoption, introducing interim technologies (e.g. management zones based on farmers or advisors experience) that can be readily incorporated by a relatively significant group of farmers

Activity 5 is very important in order to improve the adoption of SSWM. It could be pragmatic approaches or description of socioeconomic barriers and other bottlenecks. In order to organize the meeting, please send me a title and a short abstract of your presentation before 1 March 2003.


Task 5.1. Present your methods for participatory research and extension on SSWM. Madrid 9 - 11 April 2003 

Task 5.2. Participate in discussion session to define 'country specific' SSWM technology transfer best.


Number of visitors: 1927