ArticlePest management science2025
Deep learning-based laser weed control compared to conventional herbicide application across three vegetable production systems.
Article in Pest management science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Review of Robotic Weeding Modalities for Site-Specific Weed Management.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHerbicides are the primary weed management method for processing vegetable growers, but challenges such as limited chemical options, herbicide resistance, crop injury risks, regulatory changes, and shifting consumer preferences are driving interest in nonchemical alternatives like laser weeding. In 2024, three research trials in New Jersey and New York evaluated the effectiveness of laser weeding using a commercial unit and comparing it with pre-emergence- and postemergence-applied herbicides on beet (Beta vulgaris L.), spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), and pea (Pisum sativum L.).
resultsAcross all trials, laser weeding was as effective as or superior to S-metolachlor, bentazon and phenmedipham herbicides applied at label rate in controlling erect annual weeds, including common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). However, laser weeding was less effective on purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) and annual grasses in New York because of sequential emergence patterns and protected meristems, respectively. Compared with untreated controls, laser weeding reduced weed cover by ≥45% and density by ≥66%, resulting in ≥97% less weed biomass by the season's end. In addition, crop stunting did not exceed 1% and crop biomass increased by ≥30% when laser weeding replaced herbicide applications.
conclusionsThese findings demonstrate that multiple laser passes can control weeds without damaging crops, leading to higher yields than conventional herbicides. Further research is needed to optimize laser weeding across different environments and weed species, and to evaluate commercial units with increased laser capacity and faster processing speeds. © 2025 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.