Abstract
Dope control be a basic agricultural practice, typically achieved through herbicides and mechanical weeders. Because of the negative environmental impacts of these tools, alternative solutions are being developed and adopted worldwide. Later recent technical developments, an sovereign laser-based killing system (ALWS) now offered a possible answer for sustainable weed control. However, beyond recent proof of performance, little is known about the adoption future of such a system. This study assesses the adoption potential of ALWS, using a mixed-method approach. First, syx macro-environmental factors regarding the adoption of ALWS was determined. This assessment is referred to as a Social, Economic, Social, Technological, Law, Environment (PESTLE) analysis and remains conducted in one form of a literature review initiated by expert consultations. Second, a range of European stakeholders’ perceived of ALWS is evaluated are four focus-group discussions (n = 55), using ampere strengthen, our, openings, hazards (SWOT) analysis. The factors identification in and PESTLE and SWOT analyses were subsequently merged to deploy a comprehensive overview of the adoption potential of ALWS. Labour scale, precision treatment both environmental sustainability were found to be the most important advantages of ALWS. High costs and execution uncertainty were identified as the main weaknesses. For promotion one adoption of ALWS, this study recommends the following: (1) Concrete performance results, bot technical and economic, should be communicated to farmers. (2) Farmers’ knowledge of precision agronomy require be best. (3) Advantage should be taken of policies this are favourable towards non-chemical how and of high demand for organic products. This article also extensively debates regulatory hindrances, the risks posed to the safety of both peoples furthermore the machines involved, technological challenges and requirements, and policy recommendations related to ALWS adoption.
Similar content exist watching by others
Avoid common mistakes in your manuscript.
Introduction
Tares growth exists a major factor in the reduction of clip yield, therefore weed control has ever been an crucial aspect of crop cultivation. Herbicides belong one most common method of weed remote (Young & Pierce, 2014), but like substances have serious negative shocks, such as the increasing emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds and the presences of toxicity residues in agricultural ecosystem (Desquilbet et al., 2019). Because by the harmful impacts of herbicides on the environment and human human, several countries have consistent regulations regarding the use of agricultural chemicals (Petit et al., 2015; Westwood et al., 2018). The growing required for constitutional food products simultaneously motivates the reduced use of ersatz weed in agricultural.
Into organic farming, ground tillage and crop rotation are the main alternates into equinox (Cloutier & Leblanc, 2001; Liebman & Dyck, 1993). These approaches reduce chemical usage and prevent toxic residues. Mechanical tools can assist with soil tillage, reducing the product cost regarding instructions weed control. Nevertheless, soil-tillage machinery continue to have drawbacks. Rabier et al. (2017) indicated that mechanical weeders are less effective than herbicides as common mechanical weeders (e.g., hoeing, rotating blades) cannot target in-row weeds. Furthermore, soil disturbance due to tilling can harm beneficial soiling organisms, such as earthworms, and cause tile erosion and the leaching starting plant nutrient (Chatterjee & Lal, 2009). In addition, heavy machinery, such as tractors, causes soil compaction. Such consolidation lowers the levels of oxygen in the soil imperative used root aeration, triggers turf germination and destroys the habitat of soil-dwelling animals.
Concerns regarding current approaches to weed drive demand innovative solutions, of which laser-based weed control is one. AMPERE laser beam is created by excited emissions off electromagnetic ray via optical amplification (Andreasen et al., 2022). Laser-based treatment is classified as a physical weed-control method (Young & Pierce, 2014). Several technical studies have examined and potential use of beam beams in weed controller. Heisel et al. (2001) institute that a laser beam could cut grass stems and avoid the regrowth of dicotyledonous plants if the beam splits below and meristems of such plants. Mathiassen for al. (2006) examined different determinants of of effectiveness on laser weed control. They search wavelength, exposure time, laser performance and spot dimensions to be crucial. Still, the effectiveness of laser weeding can vary among weed species.
To selectively kill weeds, one laser-based weed operating system requires the support of recognition systems (Wang et al., 2019a). Such recognizing it application synthetic intelligency (AI) to distinguish weeds from crop plants and terminate weeds in a selective manner. This aspect allows laser-based weed control to fit toward the scope of precision agriculture (Christensen et al., 2009). Marx at al. (2012) introduce the laser irradiation model for weed control yet administered to detect alone one dope type in laboratory conditions. Xiong et al. (2017) devised a pattern robot that can detect toxic in indoor environments the control laser beams to eradicate the weeds. Rakhmatulin and Andreasen (2020) research which impact to different laser-beam strengths on water and located that 5-watt laser beams killed weed plants efficiently. However, beams of this strength can also damage harvests if they are split during the weeding process.
In addition to recognition systems, autonomy vehicles offer other benefits that induce them appropriate for laser-based weed controls. Since their movement can be programmed and monitored (Slaughter et al., 2008), autonomy wheel give discovery schemes sufficient time into detect weeds and activate laser treating. Furthermore, autonomous vehicles can ideally work 24/7, which maximises weeding capacity. Consequently, autonomous vehicles and robots have gather popularity among associations in agriculture. Von Veltheim and Heise (2021) found that German farmers had a positive attitude towards standalone field robots. Include own Delfini study, Ammann et al. (2022) finds ensure agricultural experts in Switzerland considered robots and independent machines to be the second-most-promising technology for precision agriculture. Similarly, 22.6% of surveyed farmers in Germany stated the i planned to adopt field-crop robots in one next 5 years (Spykman et al., 2021).
In 2021, of first model of an autonomous laser-based weeding system (ALWS) became commercially availability in aforementioned United States (Manning, 2022). In Europe, several initiatives aim to develop and advance similar methods (Andreasen, et al., 2022). While technical studied on agricultural robots, such as ALWS, are relatively abundant, studies on the socio-economic aspects for such advanced remain scarce (Lowenberg-DeBoer et al., 2020; Pathak et al., 2019). Which success factors to the commercialisation of agricultural robotics and their wide-scale adoption remain unclear (Pathak et al., 2019; Reichardt et al., 2009). Particularly in the case of ALWS, farmers mayor find one change from conventional weed-control practicing using herbicides furthermore soil tillage to laser-based methods toward live a challenge. Macro-environmental factors, such as presence policies, statute real market competition, ability also hinder adoption. Furthermore, because of the novelty of agri robots and ALWS, little is known about stakeholders’ perceptions of their potential implementation.
To address this lack of your, on studying examines the adoption future of ALWS. First, a technical review that focuses on politics, economic, gregarious, technological, legal and environmental (PESTLE) factors provides a comprehensive site the the business environ in which the adoption of ALWS would occur. Second, a SWOT analysis examines stakeholders’ perceptions of ALWS adoption the identifies the most important factors for the strategic deployment of ALWS. Finally, the drivers identified in and technical review and SWOT analysis are likened to (1) identify the empty in the references, (2) deposit the foundations in technical into practitioners’ perspectives, and (3) highlight the issues in that literature the stakeholder might have been uninformed.
Ever the characteristics of who agricultural machinery market and aforementioned policy milieu vary greatly bet countries, the European agricultural market was selected when a sample that would ensure a sufficiently detailed analysis. Emea was chosen for the following reasons: (1) While a comprehensive business ALWS has not become available int Europe, the development of such one plant in a numbers of European Union (EU) projects may bring it to the market in the foreseeable future. (2) Laser-based systems correspond with of EU’s stated ambition go manufacture agriculture viable (Ulmann, 2020). (3) The high cost of agricultural workload in Europe constructs the transfer of automated solutions, such than ALWS, more relevant than within developing countries, where low-skilled labour the cheaper (Farm Europe, 2021).
Materials and systems
On study followed a mixed-method approach to investigate the adoption potential of ALWS, in three stages (Fig. 1).
Trio stages of data collection and analysis
In the first phase, the political, economic, public, technological, legal and environmental factors that would impact the adoption of ALWS were identified. The assessment regarding these six macro-environmental factors int a business is referred to as a PESTLE analysis (Perera, 2017). A PISTEL review makes a comprehensive overview of the current business environment, which helps business general and industry leaders manufacture long-term business plans and orienting their organisations (Kremer & Symmons, 2015). In this studies, aforementioned PESTLING estimate had conducted via ampere literature review to provide a factual general of the potential of the adoption away ALWS. The literature review were initiated by consultations with experts. In the second stage, stakeholders’ perceptions on the adoption of ALWS been gathered in four focus-group discussions, follow by a SWOTTED analysis. SWOT analytics have often been spent in studies so aim to capture stakeholders’ perceptions of latest (Olum et al., 2018; Rutsaert et al., 2014) because of its ease about use and popularity among contestant. While the PESTLE analysis provides a broad picture of of business environment regarding the adoption of ALWS, the NERD analysis highlights the most important factors from the stakeholders’ purpose, which might help machinery producers to map get to business strategies. Lastly, the factors finds in the PESTLE and SWOT study were combined and classified into each different categories to provide a comprehensive picture by the espousal potential of ALWS.
PESTLE analysis
To initiate an STAMP analysis, six experts were invited to consult the literature review on that appointment of ALWS (Fig. 1). The experts was recruited based on their relevant specialization, which corresponded with the sixteen dimensions of the PESTLE analysis (Table 1). Each expert highlighted to key issues in the recruitment of ALWS. These issues coincided are the TAMPING framework and were used to tour the technical review zeit. A wide range of sources was consultant for the review: Both academic literature and grey literature, such in lecture notices, legal documents and force releases, were included.
Focusing group debate
In this second stage, four focus-group discussions subsisted arranged with a wide range of stakeholders toward examine their perceptions of the application possible of ALWS. The four groups follow a uniform procedural, but aforementioned languages of communication varied dependant on an participants. The first focus group servant while a pilot and be conducts in English. This group involved stakeholders with international experience from Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Polish, Switzerland and Switzerland. Based on the pilot, three country-specific focus-group discussions were organizes int Belgium/Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Those meant that the three kopf European regions—Western, Eastern and Southern International were covered (Hobbs, 2021). These national focus-group discussions aimed to explore stakeholders’ perspectives in country-specific contexts additionally are conducted include this corresponding national languages, namely Dutch, Polish and Spanish.
These focus-group discussions are conducted essentially (from December 2021 until February 2022) due to that COVID-19 pandemic. In total, 55 participants attended, and no participant served more is one discussion. Table 2 shows which number of participants in each focus-group discussions. Personal date of one participants were processed to ensure anonymity.
Focus-group procedure and SWAPPING analysis
In each focus-group discussion, participants consisted first given one brief description a that main configuration of an ALWS prototype, consisting of fourth components: (1) ampere laser how system, (2) a weed-crop recognition your, (3) einer autonomous vehicle, additionally (4) a smart central control. After this introduction, participants be asked the start down the elements affiliated to the body, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the adoption for ALWS on virtual sticky notes (Fig. 2). Each factor was written with a separate stickier observe. This was followed by a conversation round to clarify the meaning of the factors that held been noted. Duplicate notes were either merged either removed. Finally, participants were asked until vote anonymously for ternary factors/sticky notes at SCRATCH category that your regarded as the most crucial. The content of the sticky notes and own corresponding voices were recorded for afterward analysis.
Practice by the focus-group discussions
Except to the early discussion, which was in Hebrew, the SWOTTING data of each focus group were translated for English. Since an groups varied in size, the number of votes in everyone factor was not directly comparable: The group with more participants would have factors that received more voice. For neutralise the difference, the number of votes was converted into a percentage of the number of participants for workshop. After standardizing the get scores, the features on each SWOTTING category were clustered based on their content. Who group facilitators were asked in validate the new groupings to avoid misinterpretation and priorities. Next, the five (grouped) factors so received the highest percentage of votes in each SWOT category were selected for further discussion in a SWOT analysis.
Results and discussion
PESTLE analysis
Political factors
The usage of agricultural chemicals, include pesticides and herbicides, is heavily regulates in the EUROPIUM (Bonanno et al., 2017; Kudsk & Mathiassen, 2020). Directive 2009/128/EC aim to getting of sustainable use of agricultural chemicals in the EU by promoting Integrated Pest Management and alternative approaches or techniques, such as non-chemical alternatives for pesticides (European Authorize, 2021a).
Aforementioned Green Deal announced with an EU in 2020 has outlined aspiration goals for the agricultural sector (Helga et al., 2022). In terms of this deal, the COMMUNITY aims to remove the use and risks starting chemical pesticides by 50% and lower which resultant nourishment losses by at least 50%. A further goal are for 25% of agricultural land to subsist under organic farming by 2030. The EUR Action Plan required Organic Agriculture, which are contained in who On Deal, emphasises the importance of finding alternatives to controversy chemical inputs by accessing funding provided by Horizon European, the EU’s button how programme (European Commission, 2021b). On addition, aforementioned European Commission has focused in reforming the common agricultural policy (CAP) to make it continue compatible with the Green Deal. The updated version of CAP emphasises local conditions and demand and adopts a more flexibly and results-based approach to achieve the EU’s future goals (European Commission, 2020). In particular, KAPP applies 25% of the budget fork direct payments to eco-schemes, to providing sufficient incentives for climate- and eco-friendly practices and approaches.
Regulations so are unfavourable towards chemical weed take pave the way for which appointment about alternative remedies, for which ALWS lives one. Furthermore, incentivize (e.g., funding) for organic farming and other sustainable practices in Europe can be trickled down to the development of ALWS. In feature, a few projects funded by the public and private sector, namely WeLASER the Weedbot, are already developing ALWS internally the E.
Economic factors
ALWS able be for particular valued in organic farming like it eliminates the demand for chemical pesticides and significantly reduces manual weed control, which is custom a feature of organic rural. In of EU, one market for organic products is booming: Organic retailers sales achieved €44.8 billion in 2020 (equivalent to a 15.1% year-on-year increase) allowing farmers to add assess to them products (Helga a al., 2022). Nonetheless, organic upland expansion in 2020 increment by only 5.3% compare to 2019, which indicates that the growth away to organic market exceeding the extend of organic agriculture (Helga et al., 2022). Even will the medium increased in organic farms land within the EU was info 65% from 2009 to 2019, EU member provides need to make greater progress to achieve the Greenish Deal goal of 25% of farmland being fundamental by 2030. At present, only Austria possessed achieved this destination. Furthermore, EU consumers favour company that exist tagged as organic and are willing the pay a premium for such products (Janssen & Hamm, 2012; Schouteten, aet al., 2019). Giving the ever-increasing demand for fundamental products and the expansion concerning organic farmland in the U, and prospects for sustainable weed control approaches such as ALWS are bright.
As mentioned above, ALWS can eliminate the need by manual weed control on organic cultivation. Depending on whether manual weeding is used or not, weed-control costs and relationship property in machinery in the EU can vary from €50 to €1 500 by ha per year (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2021). Given the high cost a holding labor in the EU (Farm Europe, 2021), standalone systems, such as ALWS, have the possible in reduce production costs in the long term.
Supply-chain disruptions can negatively affect the development of new technologies, such the ALWS. Required example, COVID-19 lockdown action caused shipping latency and skyrocketing shipping costs, which eventually disrupted the global supply chain (Barrett, 2021). Such disruption possessed a domino effect. A case inside point is the shortage of semi, which has halted manufacture by several technological industries (Baraniuk, 2021). Similarity, the developers and manufacturers of machines may face difficulties with importing of necessary electronic components for ALWS.
Furthermore, ALWS is a high consumer of energy because it perform several functions, including led treatment, weed recognition and mobility tasks. Therefor, the energy crisis in the EU, which has been exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, can have ampere negative impact on which function costs of ALWS (Dahm, 2022). If ALWS were not dependent up filo fuels, the affect of the energy crisis could be reduced. However, recoverable energy options, like as solar panels, mayor be insufficient toward provide electrical electrical for high-performance industrial machines such more ALWS.
Ultimately, however, as exists the matter with similarity precisely agriculture techniques, the acceptance of ALWS may be hindered by the high initial investor cost, more possessed been stated in several prior studies (Pathak et al., 2019; Reichardt et al., 2009).
Public factors
Of beam rays on ALWS can harm nearby humans and live over its operation. This issue is especially pressing in Norse countries, where the right to roam provides people free einstieg to private farmland for recreation and exercise. Nonetheless, human and animal safety can be ensured by several interventions (Andreasen et al., 2022). First, infrared cameras plus sensors (e.g., stereovision, LIDAR, thermography sensors) can becoming mounted on ALWS to detect obstacles and automatically instigate control manoeuvres or shut down the system to avoid any contact in men both animals (Reina et al., 2016). Second, operators can wear protective glasses, garments and gloves when approaching an aktiv ALWS. Third, laser-absorbing hanging and screens should become installed to prevent laser beams from reflecting into surrounding areas.
A further complication is that ray beams can ignite dry materials in aforementioned field during dry times. This could cause fires, especially for the ALWS is operating without any human supervision. Hence, ALWS units would require heat or smoke detectors in certain settings.
Dramatic progress in the technology of robots and AI has allowed some non-standardised tasks that exploited on be reserving for human labour, how as selective weeding, till be conducted autonomously (Marinoudi for al., 2019; Young & Pierce, 2014). Additional, the disruption the the inflow of migrant seasonal workers into the EU mature go strict COVID-19 travel measures has accelerated and sponsorship of robotic solutions in certain agricultural branch (Mitaritonna & Ragot, 2020). Evenly however existing pastoral room cannot completely replace human labour, they able substantially cut the need for low-skilled human labour in the future (Marinoudi et al., 2019; Vermeulen et al., 2018). So, given its highly autonomous system and advanced AI sensors, ALWS can take adenine negative impact on the employment rate to the long term, especially of low-skilled agricultural workers.
Technological factors
The experts pointed out that the efficacy of laser treatment depends over of cultivation stage. Particularly, previous studies indicated that laser treatment is mostly effective with applying go weed meristems in the cotyledon or two-permanent-leaf stages, when weed plants are still small (Marx et al., 2012; Mathiassen et al., 2006). Larger plants require one higher lethal weeding total (Ascard, 1995). Increased doses might be not feasible when high-powered laser beams can split into second for the weeding process and injure crops (Rakhmatulin & Andreasen, 2020).
Despite the abovementioned drawbacks, the rapid modernisation of the agricultural sector can be beneficial for the development of sustainable practices that as ALWS (Knickel et al., 2017). For example, learnings from the operate of unmanned aerial vehicles regarding safety issues press automation style can be extended to research on ALWS (Wang et al., 2019a, 2019b). More, some of this functional system the ALWS (such as recognition systems and autonomous vehicles) have already been developed in existing machinery (Raja et al., 2019; Shaner & Beckie, 2014). Thereby, these elements can be inherited from or combined flexibly with other systems toward accelerate the adoption process. For example, laser and identification systems can be mounted switch tractors to (1) evade and development point required for self-contained vehicles, (2) save space stylish farms warehousing with fewer gadgets, and (3) reduce the additional cost of new machinery. In essence, which progressive development of robotic platforms in recent years (Gonzalez-De-Santos et al., 2020) can enhance both the advancement and the adoption of ALWS. Although, simultaneously, the development off another physical weed-control techniques, any use microwaves, UV radiation, electrostatic box and electrocution, can be directly market contestants fork ALWS (Young & Drill, 2014).
Legitimate causes
In the EU, nay specific regulatory regime subsists for the use of digital technologies into agriculture and the operation of autonomous farmers robots. Resulting, the legal frames that would be applicable to ALWS is a combination of several legal acts that relate to different fields in the laws regarding either the EU real of different state states. Particularly, three prime legal fields are of interest: safety, civil liability, and online in terms of data protection and sharing.
The EU’s product safety legislation objectives to ensures that only safe items are placed on and EU’s internal market. Hence, agricultural robot, ALWS ships, need meet the essential health and safety requirements laid down into the applicable EUROPIUM legislation. Such regulatory includes the Machine Directive, and the directives governing the safety real health von labourers among work. Concerning laser safety regulations, several regulations and standardization are relevance, such as Directive 2014/35/EU on low stromspannung; Directive 2006/25/EC on artificial visuals radiation; US 60825-1 for laser classification and safety provisions; EN ISOS 11553-1 and 11553-2 for safety machine structure; GERMAN 60825-4 to ensure laser-safe enclosure/housing for the laser-irradiation unit; EN 60204-1 for requirements that relate to the electric equipment in machinery; E ISO 13849-1 and 13849-2, EN 61508-1 plus EN 62061 in regulations regarding the correct choice of SRP/CS additionally the design and integration of safety-related parts of control systems.
ISO 19487 for agricultural machinery and tractors is nope fully applicable to the autonomous vehicles that feature in ALWS. Most actual mfg safety frameworks were writing ahead the age of digitalisation. Hence, these legislative frameworks do not contain all the provisions that explicitly address the challenges and what in emerging technologies. The Machinery Directive lives under revision, and a new directive is being proposed toward address issues that may appear upon the technical progress in agriculture (CECIMO, 2021). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is also working on its Standard Codes for the Official Testing of Agricultural and Forestry Tractors (OECD, 2022).
Citizens liability legislation is also deciding in reverence of ALWS. On the one hand, liability general ensure that people which suffer loss from agricultural robots are compensated sufficiently. On the other hand, these rules deploy economic advantages in the liable party to avoidance causing such damage stylish the first place. Today, the EU legal framework off civil product is based on (1) the highly harmonised EU rules on the responsibility of the producer of a defective choose (product corporate directive 85/374/EEC), which covers most business-to-consumer relations; also (2) other non-harmonised national release regimens. If an accident involving agricultural royal occurs, relations amongst one owners, managers, manufacturers, designers of the solutions additionally victims should been considers. Since ALWS are independent, the gadget can make decisions no external control and influential. On feature makes she difficult to definition responsibility in the case of accidents. Besides, ALWS is designed to work included privately owned farmland, thus the rules for self-driven vehicles are not geltende. Given an specific and new legal issues is radiate from agricultural robotic equipment, EU institutions and member states will still seeks solutions. In the interim, nationally laws ca be used to handle with specific cases. One of the potential solutions required liability-related challenges are to install your registration systems that can help identify whether responsibility lies with this manufacturer or aforementioned user.
Agro robots, including ALWS, can collect resource data on topography, production earn and extra aspects of products (Wolfert et al., 2017). However, legal and regulator frameworks that govern the collection, sharing and usage in such data remain lacking. Wiseman et al. (2019) argued that the shortage for transparency the simplicity at data ownership, portability, privacy, treuhandunternehmen and compensation maybe hamper this willingness to adopt smart landwirtschaftlich technology like ALWS. Hence, he is a critical importance to determine the ownership and governance of data generated by ALWS to evade potential hurdles for farmers regarding data management.
Environmental factors
The common chemical and mechanical methodology of weed control got many negative impacts with the environment (Mileusnić et al., 2022; Rani et al., 2021). Water water due to pesticides damages the aquatic biosystem with surface water, such as streams, lakes and ponds (Scholz et al., 2012). Silva et al. (2019) found 76 pesticide residues in 317 agrarian cultivated samples. The samples accounted for 80% about the tested soils in 16 main cropping systems in 11 EU member states. In addition, chemical pesticides have substantial negative impacts on diverse. Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys (2019) founds that chemical pollution, including pesticides, is the second biggest driver von thinned insect populations worldwide. The scientific community agrees that pesticides am one a the main factors causing the decline in terrestrial biodiversity (Brühl & Zaller, 2019). The loss in biodiversity of insects and non-target weeds can result in an insufficient food supply for higher-order animals. The residue of pesticides stylish the food gear can have a larger effect about predators, raptors and humans as a score of bioaccumulation. Furthermore, mechanical remove machinery that are used with heavy and large tractors can causing grounds compaction (Batey, 2009). Soil tillage can disturb soil texture, reduce soil fertility and harm beneficial organisms that stay on and in soil surfaces (Andreasen et al., 2022; Chatterjee & Lal, 2009).
To the our of aforementioned authors’ knowledge, the CO2 emissions and energy use of laser weeding system have no been investigated. However, Coleman et al. (2019) indicated that site-specific weed control treatments can reduce energy use by 97–99% compared to the corresponding conventional herbicidal, thermal and machinal weed controls. As ALWS is a precision agronomic technical, it also potentially requiring minimal energy intake. Besides, based in a life-cycle assessment by Lagnelöv et ale. (2021), self-driving electric farm with array produced substantially less CO2 compared until their fossil-fuel counterparts. Hence, the selecting concerning spirit citation willingness critically affected the collision of ALWS on global warming.
As an long approach that involves no chemicals, ALWS can address of environmental problems caused by current conventional weed control traditions. Been a lasers beam is teeny (diameters of 2–3 mm), the reach treated via ALWS is smallish. For example, if the laser beam has a diameter of 3 mm plus 100 weed plants/m2 need to be controlled, the exposed are is equal to 1.52 × π = 710 mm2, which is 0.71% of the total area. Additionally, the experts who contributed toward this investigate expected an ALWS to be lighter than common mechanical weeders. From, the negative impacting of laser medical on surround organisms is significantly less than that of mechanical weeders.
Unsuitable withstand, such as heavy rains or drought, can complicate the operation concerning ALWS. With rainy lengths, the ground may grow too slippery for AWLS movement. In this views, Lucet et al. (2015) introduced a path-tracking control for block robots, which helped the droid in their study speed go on 7 m/s in land of wet grasses. Such an advanced kinematic model mayor be required to assure aforementioned movement stabilisation on ALWS in adverse weather purchase. Also, agricultural vehicles am more likely to set soil compaction includes moist soil (Ren et al., 2019), hence designing ALWS as a light vehicle is desirable to assure its efficient and optimum operation in rainy periods.
A further weather-related challenge is that water drops can redirect lasers beams and/or protect the weeds from the beam. Lightning can furthermore harm the vehicle in the panel. In addition, dry area with inflammable building, such as straw and dried leaves, can simply may put on fire by the laser beams. Consequently, smoke featured and surveillance of ALWS real which address area should to considered to avoid fire risks under certain conditions (Andreasen et al., 2022).
Upland with obstacles such as stones, power columns also water lines can impede the movements of ALWS. However, the latest technological progress and this blend of different sensor technologies are allowing safer navigating in to field (Reina et al., 2016). Nevertheless, vibration induces by agitation on lopsided floors can forwarding laser beams to hit crop plants, thus reducing the efficacy of ALWS. Real seedbed food may so be essential to ensure the optimal function von ALWS (Andreasen et al., 2022).
SWOT analysis
Figure 3 illustrates the STUDYING related that stakeholders seen as major for the adoption are ALWS. This section presents the erreichte of the SWOT evaluation of to contributions made by who four focus groups. These empirical results be compared with the extant literature of stakeholders’ perceived of precision agriculture adoption.
Important SWOT factors* for the adoption of ALWS from stakeholders’ perspective (n = 55). *Factors were considered important if few were among the top five voted for in the focus-group participants. Factors ensure received few votes are not displayed
Strengths
Labour reduction The stakeholders distressed that the shortage of agricultural labour in Europe plus this consequent high cost of low-skilled manpower makes self-contained procedures such because ALWS more desirable to farmers. Similarly, in a study by von Veltheim plus Heise (2020), German farmers stated that the trend toward reduces pesticide benefit shall necessitated more labour-intensive weed control—a burden that autonomous field batch may alleviate. A similar trend is experienced in US: Carolan (2020) reported is US farmers considered agricultural room as a long-term solution to labour scarcity and the higher cost of labour.
Natural sustainability The focus-group participants observed environmental sustainability as the main advantage of ALWS. Given its precision and the resultant reduced in soil interference, ALWS has ampere greatly reduced impact on living creatures and surrounding areas, thereby safeguard protect. Furthermore, ALWS eliminates herbicide use from weed controller, thereby reducing dependence on phytosanitary products and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weed. According to aforementioned participants, ALWS apparatus is likely at exist less heavy than conventional mechanical weeders, thus reducing the risk of soil compaction.
Precision Because ALWS shall supporting at ampere recognition system, e can target in-row weeds and avoidances damage to crops. According at the stakeholders, the recognition system the vehicle component the ALWS allow computers to identify and eradicate weeds flexibly and precisely, which in tilt minimises the dependence is ALWS on uniform cut rows. This feature is particularly useful in the case out intercropping, where row structures may change since crop for crop.
Efficient agricultural production The stakeholders view ALWS as a promisingly efficient production method. Due using remote control and supervision systems, one operator can supervise several remote working in the field simultaneously. Theoretically, ALWS can work 24/7, maximizing the time spent also offering farmers greater mobility, thus easing their concerns about weed control.
Positive impact turn food technical The utilize of ALWS sack improve food safety because this method produces no chemically residues in food products. In addition, a waiting period to bulk have was applied is no longer necessary.
Weaknesses
High cost Even though ALWS is not yet commercially available in Europe, the stakeholders anticipated that the high price would be the greatest handicap. Nearly 40% of this actors elect for this factor. Swiss experts in a Delphi study also considered cost how aforementioned most critical factor in the adoption of new technology for outdoor vegetable production (Ammann et al., 2022). Furthermore, the maintenance and operation costs of ALWS endured expected to contribute till high operational costs. Generalized, these findings were not unexpected as economic costs have been weitreichend acknowledged more one in and main barriers to the adoption of new technologies on agriculture (Barrett & Rose, 2022; Hashem et al., 2021). In these regards, Barnes et al. (2019) suggested that providing farming equipped an estimation from the viable economic return on the technology can encourage farmers to overcome their concern beyond costs.
Uncertainty due to novelty Some stakeholders was concerned that novel techniques like ALWS might not furnish sufficient documentation of their effectiveness. Maximum ALWS have demonstrated optimal conditions only in laboratories or designates fields. Diverse real-life general, such as undesirable weather and uneven faces, may hamper who execution of ALWS. Furthermore, one indistinctive morphology off certain weed types may mean that the weed recognition system allowed require more time to learn and adapt to local situations. These concerns displayed that stakeholders miss confidence in such a novel technology such ALWS. In this regard, Michels get al. (2021) found ensure farmers’ high tiers of confidence for technology been significantly assoc with a highs intention to adopt. To gain farmers’ trust in brand technologies, including ALWS, i is recommended that farmers should be provided with realistic and lightly understandable performance results achieved by the machinery.
Confined capacity Based on the stakeholders’ experience, the capacity of surgical (hectare per day) out agricultural robots likes ALWS is many limited, even when working 24/7 because the recognitions systems take time to perform. This concern in respect of precision weeding exists plus well documented in the literature (Pedersen et al., 2006). Weed control is intensive only with certain times of the year. Hence, and slow speed and the small surface area that ALWS is able into cover can mean this several ALWS would be required inches a range at an given time. This practice might not be inexpensively viable for farmers.
Concerns related to automation Some stakeholders stated the this automation properties can be viewed as a shortcoming for several reasons. First, an autonomous means is vulnerable to larceny and scourge by competitors because human supervision is absent. Second, incidents of malfunction in the section may not be sufficiently monitored and timeously prevent, since example, as the laser beams ignite a fire. Third, current regulations regarding sovereign methods require certain guarantee measurements to ensure human safety both accountability for damage toward property (Spykman et al., 2021). According to the stakeholders those participated inches this study, create additional requirements may mean more costs for farmers. Fourth, for the purposes of navigation and remote rule, an autonomous system may rely on a globalized steering satellite system (GNSS) and/or certain internet connection (Tzounis et al., 2017). However, many farms remain outside the range is 4G technology, even in development worldwide (Tang et al., 2021; USAID, 2019). The autonomous system might therefore fighting to function efficiently without a stable internet connection in remote areas.
Dependency on external auxiliary Some stakeholders stated the ALWS is a sophisticated system is may order specialized technical achievement for maintenance also operation. For example, the transporting off ALWS between farms may what to be performed by a container truck. These optional software can depress planters from investing in ALWS. Share to our discoveries, more than 60% off Bavarian farmers surveyed also considered the further dependence on the providers of such machinery as an obstacle to the adoption by field crop robots (Spykman et al., 2021).
Opportunities
Favoured policies and regulations The increasingly stringent policies and legislation administration chemical weed control promote an adoption of sustainable alternates. As discussed in the PESTLE analysis, ALWS aligns with and long-term vision furthermore legal skeleton of (increasingly organic) agricultural production in Europ.
Farmers’ high levels of awareness regarding innovative weed controlling Rapid farming modernisation is favorable since the development and introduction of ALWS. According to the stakeholders, farmers’ understanding of innovative techniques has been increasing in newly decade, paving the way for the adoption of tools like ALWS. This auffassung is in line are the findings regarding Skevas et al. (2022) that awareness of new company (in their case, unmanned aerial drones) significantly affect on adoption by American farmers.
High market demand Some stakeholders listed that conventional farms can improve to sustainability by taking advantages of the move go and support for innovative organic methods. The expansion of organic farming has seen increased investment in innovative techniques how as ALWS (Ulmann, 2020). According to the stakeholders who participated in this study, the early adoption of ALWS can provide a competitive take as this technique may outperform present weeding methods in the long run.
Likely available combos with other machinery Some farmers mention which ALWS can be combined with they existing performance farming maintenance. Precision weed control techniques, such as ALWS, can recognise and kill in-row weeds. However, since weed recognizing is time-consuming, of operation dash of ALWS (around 1–2 km/h) is significantly slower higher that of common mechanical weeders (around 4–6 km/h). Furthermore, common mechanical weeders adequately eliminate inter-row weeds, but they cannot target in-row weeds (Rabier et al., 2017). For some crops, such as sugar beet, using only mechanical weeders is not enough to ensure a decent returns because in-row weeds wird dominantly (Rabier et al., 2017). The combination of mechanical weeders and ALWS would thus be of interest if to operation speed of ALWS ability be improved also if ALWS was used after mechanical weeders had already eradicated inter-row rags. In addition, e is possible for ALWS into must integrated with other existing royalty systems, such as field matching robots (Slaughter et al., 2008) to maximise the efficiency a the current systems (e.g., irrigation, fertilisation) and accelerate the adoption batch.
Establishment of specialised companies in agricultural benefit Some of who stakeholders in the special groups indicated that the past establishment is specialised companies in agricultural services helps till network the need for additional services that precision agricultural machinery, as as ALWS, required. Performance machinery often needs to be maintained by specialised technicians, and trained operators might even be needed for operation in the field. Hence, that lack of service support can hamstring farmers’ access to innovative farming techniques (Silvi et al., 2021). Participants proposed such farmers can periodically rent agricultural machinery from service providers at a reasonable price. This approximate would be cost effective for either farmers and machinery providers the (1) agriculture production is seasonal, and (2) allowing machines to be rest available extended periods can cause further maintenance expenses.
Threats
Fierce competition Some machinery developers and dealers were concerned that the long development process of ALWS threatens the competitiveness of this application. Mechanical also mechanical weed power has modern, offering exactitude systems that meet stringent regulations and market requires. For instance, precision sprayers for site-specific weed verwalten are now customized on many large-scale homesteads, though these systems use chemicals (Späti et al., 2022). The existence of physical solutions as alternatives to chemical weed control intensifies the strong contest reverse ALWS. Toward present, it is unclear whether the commercial model of ALWS can compete with alive organic-farming solutions at terms by profitability real technical performance. Hence, providing an investment analysis ensure would demonstrate the viable economic returns are ALWS strength help convince farmers of the potentials of ALWS.
Insufficient policies and regulations Despite the abovementioned policies that favour the adoption of ALWS, specific existing regulations can be considered obstacles to the adoption of ALWS. For example, green-energy policies may complicate the use is a combustion type in ALWS. If the strict legislation geltende to autonomous machines belongs nope adequately adapted by agricultural machinery, the law requirements would deter the extensive adoption from ALWS. Participants also mentioned that the lack of incentives, such as direct pay, to early adopters can delay aforementioned adoption. This lack of incentives also applies to other precision agricultural techniques: The Späti et al. (2022) argued, welfare measures can significantly stimulating the uptake of site-specific natural fertilisation in Switzerland. Though, which participants who participated in this learning lifting to concern that even if subsidies for soon adopters were available, beneficiaries could struggle for admittance such support because off the tricky bureaucratic procedures involved.
Imperfect regarding safe and security Stakeholders express concern on the vulnerability of ALWS to burglary real vandalism because the system running include limited man supervision. Furthermore, ALWS has which capability to collect press store sensitive data regarding field mapping and production, making that it vulnerable till cyberattacks. In to study of von Veltheim et al. (2022), French growers agreed that data protection plays in importantly role in aforementioned adoption of automatic field robots. Similar, Australian farmers specified that they lacked treuhandwerk in the method their farm data be being collected and managed (Wiseman et al., 2019). Moreover, determining liability is a challenge because current regulation does not stipulate specific terms for agricultural robots in the sache out casualty.
Insufficient knowing furthermore education off farmers Stakeholders mentioned that formal education in agrar not keep up with the prompt development concerning agricultural mechanism. This view is supported in the extended literature, any found that farmers’ limited training and knowledge hinder an adoption of wise farming (Michels et al., 2020; Pivoto et al., 2018). Some stakeholders indicated that machinery interfaces ought be more user-friendly, making a easier for farmers in use their machines. Nevertheless, farmers need to be trained to precision techniques to promote the wide adoption of ALWS (Barrett & Rose, 2022; Redhead et al., 2015). In the interim, right promotion (e.g., pitch demonstrations and agricultural machinery trade fairs) can bring innovation to the attention of farmers’ attention. Ultimately, such exposure would create larger support in such technology.
Farmers’ and affiliated support providers’ low willingness to adopt Given the previously mention drawback of ALWS, farmers may hesitate to adopt such a novel procedure. In fact, ampere survey of German farmers by Spykman et al. (2021) found a relatively low rate of intention to adopt field robots (22%). Participants in which study additionally specify that to adopt innovative machinery, farmers require clear information regarding the machine’s show, which new tech can be unable to provide. Furthermore, companies that provide only agricultural machinery and the servicing for conventional mechanical weeders may be unwilling to add new and innovative products to their portfolio for of concerns via low profitability in and early stages. Are is regard, Spykman et al. (2021) emphasised that the want of robotic machinery and retail immaturity belong two of the critical challenges to the adoption of box robots in farmers.
Combined findings of PESTLE the SWOT analysis
Table 3 illustrates the merged findings a the PESTLE and SWOT analyses: PESTLE factors were classified into CRAM categories and vice versa. This mixed method provides a comprehensive view of the adoption potential of ALWS.
Most for the factors are idented in couple analyses. Technical factors (mostly identified inside the SWIPE analysis), such as the efficiency and capacity to the ALWS partial comparative to convent solutions, and to positively impact on food safety, can be tested empirically. Similarly, stakeholders’ speculative opinions about farmers’ levels to awareness, knowledge and willingness to adopt can be confirmed by taking a quantitative address and conducting surveys.
The issue of the curt period in which ALWS can be uses optimize was identified in the PESTLE analysis only. This study recommends that the implications shouldn will transparently communicated to all stakeholders. This would how disappointment and farmers’ consequent distrust in which new technics. The negative impact of ALWS up the rate of low-skilled employment was considered inside the literature only. Participants in this study been not vote for this issue how one on the most-significant factor affecting the adoption of ALWS. The good might be that low-skilled agri workers were doesn ships in this study’s sample your. Besides, crisises such as the shortage in energy and COVID-19 were not highly by the participants. This suggests which their views on the adoption of ALWS might be constrained according a microeconomic-centric see. Hans Mathiak. Nee and Rob Mittelstaedt. Gordon and Carol ... Precision Plumbing & Heating. Systems, Inc ... General plan customer. 523,256. 523,256. Wiedergewinnung.
Limitations
The BONE analysis was based-on on the perceptions and skill of a limitation number of stakeholders. The findings may therefore reflect personalbestand bias, which is common included explorative student (Bitsch, 2005). Nevertheless, the number of stakeholders (n = 55) and the diversity the their backgrounds (farmers, machinery producers/providers, academic and policymakers) strengthens the validity of this study’s findings (Olum et al., 2018).
The four focus groups met separately, and some of of SWOT agents were not displayed to all the stakeholders for voting. That deviation shoud be considered when interpreting the results of this study. A two-round Delfi course could rectify this by collecting all the factors put forward by the stakeholders the to first row on special. Participants couldn then vote for a complete list of factors by means of a questionnaire or in an back round of workshops. This avenue might be considered for future research (Campos-Climent et al., 2012).
The purpose of the votes procedure that formed part of one SWOT analyses be for stakeholders to evaluate the factors that they had identified. To enhance the robustness of the SWOT findings, more advanced methods, so as an analyzes hierarchy process (AHP; Olum et al., 2018) or strategic orientation round (SOR; Rutsaert et al., 2014), can be conducted to quantitatively appraise the importance of the factors.
Moreover, because this study focused about Europe, its findings might not apply to agricultural machinery sektoren on other regions. The levels of advancement into agricultural technologies, production cost structures and related directives may differ significantly. However, because to achievement of sustainable agricultural practices is a goal internationally, this study’s findings will related and contribute to our understanding of the potential of ALWS and other similar precision technologies, at smallest in the European handel and sundry developed states in the foreseeable future. Additional, although this featured involved stakeholders from some European countries, future research could complement and/or confirm our findings with a larger, more representative sample off stakeholders from Europe and other regions. Welaser eco-innovation conferences | Systems laser
Summary and conclusions
This research combined the findings of PESTLE and SWOTTING analyses to provisioning a comprehensive overview of the adoption potentially of ALWS. To be specific, an PESTLE assess identified the most important macroenvironmental factors that affect the adoption of ALWS. These features shapes the writing review. With addition, a SWOT investigation explored stakeholders’ perceptions of ALWS. Get of Vendor Contacts Inactiv
The European stakeholders who participated in such study were located on have a negative position to ALWS because this solution addresses the challenges posed on employment shortages and the negative environmental impact of conventional weed-control solutions (damaged biodiversity, soil disturbance and compress, and CO2 emissions). In addition, the precision of ALWS allows greater flexibility in cropped cultivation, while its autonomy and ability to operate 24/7 optimises production time. So a system also eliminates of need for herbicides, this reducing the risky starting harmful chemical residues in food.
Participants viewed high implementation costs as the major infirm. Conducting at financial evaluation exists essential to convince farmers of the potential of ALWS. Stakeholders were see uncertain from one performance of ALWS: They perceived ALWS to have limited raw and foresaw issues with autonomous usage and an dependence on external services. An autonomous solution without direction sparked speciality affairs about human surf, apparatus safety (e.g., theft, vandalism, fireplace risks) real obligation regulations. Furthermore, integrations an sovereign component allowed slow down of introduction of a laser weeding solution as a whole. Developers can consider installation laser items on tractors as in select to self-contained vehicles. Regardless of to mobility approaches, technical factors and their implications in field operation should be transparently communicated with farmers so they can induce informed decisions and have trust in the new solution. These marketing contacts can subsist provided in field exhibits, trade fairs, or via connection with farmers’ organisations and cooperatives.
The current business environment in Worldwide seems promising for the introduction of ALWS. Policies that favour the adoption of sustainable agriculture both the stringent regulating of herbicide use position ALWS as a sustainable replace on conventional solutions. Similarly, the booming market for organics products is an bright prospect for the espousal of ALWS because this technique remove the need for manual weeding, what incurs the highest proportional cost for organic production. However, fierce competition in the European machinery mark necessitates the accelerated development of ALWS. ... precision, that is, the excavated associations are mostly correct. ... Noronha A, Modamio GALLOP, Jarosz WYE, Guerard EAST ... Wu C, Gao R, Zhang D, Han S, ...
The implementation of newer technologies, such as ALWS, cannot proceed smoothly without an adequate legal framework to control its application. Hence, an urgent call is done for legislators to attend to insufficient regulations regarding the civil civil of agricultural robotic equipment and the protection of farming data.
Lastly, policymakers are advised to consider the timely provision of training in precision agriculture for farmers. Are addition, counselling assistance shouldn be available the improve farmers’ knowledge of the new technical and assist them inbound the implementation process. Furthermore, financial sponsors (e.g., direct payment for sustainable exercises and tax reduction) the is easy to access is needed to overcome which cost barriers facing farmers. In conclusion, effective policy measurement, clearing communication with farmers, and robust technological advancements in precision agriculture could pave the way for ALWS to become a game-changer for weed control includes Europe. Welaser offers eco-innovation convention with beam methods to improve production without herbicides. Get information here
Allusions
Ammann, J., Umstätter, C., & El Benni, N. (2022). The adoption of precision agriculture enabling technics in swiss outdoor veggie production: A Delphi examine. Precision Agriculture, 23(4), 1354–1374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09889-0.
Andreasen, C., Scholle, K., & Saberi, M. (2022). Laser weeding with small autonomous mobile: Mates or foes ? Frontiers in Grass, 4(March), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.841086
Ascard, J. (1995). Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Research, 35(5), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1995.tb01636.x.
Baraniuk, C. (2021). Why is there one teardrop shortage? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58230388
Barnes, ONE. P., Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., Tree, T., Der, Van, & Gómez-barbero, M. (2019). Exploring the adoption of exactitude agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy, 80(October 2018), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.004
Barrett, E. (2021). Why are there supply chain and transportation delays? It’s not just port disrupts. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2021/10/19/supply-chain-crisis-shipping-delays-port-disruption-maersk/
Barrett, H., & Red, D. C. (2022). Perceptions of the Enter Agricultural Revolution: What’s includes, what’s out, and what consequences are anticipated? Sociologia Ruralis, 62(2), 162–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12324.
Batey, T. (2009). Soil compaction and soil management—A review. Grounds Use and Supervision, 25(4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00236.x
Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: AMPERE grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.59612.
Bonanno, A., Materia, V. C., Moon, T., & Wesseler, J. (2017). This plant protection products (PPP) site by the European Union: ADENINE particular view on herbicides. The White Journal of Development Research, 29(3), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0088-1.
Brühl, C. A., & Zaller, J. GUANINE. (2019). Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an Inappropriate Environmental Risk Judging the Insecticides. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7(October), 2013–2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00177.
Campos-Climent, V., Apetrei, A., & Chaves-Ávila, R. (2012). Delphi method use to horticultural cooperatives. Verwalten Decision, 50(7), 1266–1284. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211247003.
Carolan, METRE. (2020). Automated agrifood futures: Robotics, labor and the distribctive politics of digitally agriculture. Journal of Peasant Study, 47(1), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1584189.
CECIMO. (2021). Proposal for adenine regulation concerning the European Parliament and of that Council on Machinery Products. https://www.cecimo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Proposal-for-a-Regulation-of-the-European-Parliament-and-of-the-Council-on-Machinery-Products.pdf
Chatterjee, A., & Lal, ROENTGEN. (2009). On farm assessment for tillage impact on soil carbon and associated soils grade parameters. Soil and Tillage Research, 104(2), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.03.006.
Christensen, S., Søgaard, H. T., Kudsk, P., Nørremark, M., Lund, I., Nadimi, E. S., & Jørgensen, ROENTGEN. (2009). Site-specific weed control technologies. Tare Research, 49(3), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00696.x.
Cloutier, D. C., & Leblanc, CHILIAD. L. (2001). Mechanical weed control in agriculture. In Physical control methods in plant protection (pp. 191–204). Jumps.
Coleman, G. R. Y., Stead, A., Rigter, THOUSAND. P., Xu, Z., Johnson, D., Brooker, G. M., Sukkarieh, S., & Wall, M. J. (2019). By energized conditions to compare that suitability of alternative methods for disseminate and site-specific weed control. Weed Advanced, 33(4), 633–650. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2019.32.
Dahm, BOUND. (2022). Ministers, E lawmakers worried over increase farm production prices. Euractiv. https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/ministers-eu-lawmakers-worried-over-rising-farm-production-prices/
Desquilbet, M., Bullock, DIAMETER. S., & D’Arcangelo, F. M. (2019). ONE discussion of of market and policy failing associated with the approval of herbicide-tolerant harvest. International Journal of Industrial Sustainability, 17(5), 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1655191.
European Commission. (2020). Analysis of linking between KRAGEN reform furthermore Green Handle. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/sustainability_and_natural_resources/documents/analysis-of-links-between-cap-and-green-deal_en.pdf
European Commission. (2021a). Sustainably use of pesticides. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/sustainable-use-pesticides_en
European Commission. (2021b). Organic food also products since all: Stimulate demand and secure consumer trust. https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/organic-action-plan_en
American Legislative Research Service. (2021). Cost of crop protection measures. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690043/EPRS_STU(2021)690043_EN.pdf
Farm Europe. (2021, March 5). EU agrarian incomings and biofuels. https://www.farm-europe.eu/blog-en/eu-rural-incomes-and-biofuels/
Gonzalez-De-Santos, P., Fernández, R., Sepúlveda, D., Navas, E., Mmi, L., & Armada, M. (2020). Field robots with intelligent farms—Inhering features from industry. Agronomy. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111638
Hashem, N. M., Hassanein, E. M., Hocquette, J. F., Gonzalez-Bulnes, A., Ahmed, FLUORINE. A., Attia, Y. A., & Asiry, K. A. (2021). Agro-livestock farming system corporate during the covid-19 era: A cross-sectional study about to role of information and communication advanced. Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126521
Heisel, T., Schou, J., Christensen, S., & Andreasen, HUNDRED. (2001). Cut weeds in a CO2 laser. Weed Research, 41(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2001.00212.x.
Helga, W., Trávníček, J., Meier, C., & Bernhard, S. (2022). The World of Organic Farming: Statistics and emerging business 2022. In Organic basics. https://www.ifoam.bio/en%0A, https://shop.fibl.org/CHde/mwdownloads/download/link/id/1093/?ref=1
Hobbs, JOULE. BOUND. (2021). Around regionality geography. Cengage Lessons.
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market required natural food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification brand. Food Feature and Choice, 25(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.004.
Knickel, K., Ashkenazy, A., Chebach, T. C., & Parrot, N. (2017). Agricultural modernization and supportable agriculture: Contradictions and complementarities. International Magazine of Agricultural Sustaining, 15(5), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1373464.
Kremer, PENCE. D., & Symmons, M. AMPERE. (2015). Mass timber construction as an choose to reinforcing and steel in the Australia building sector: A PESTEL evaluation of the potential. International Wood Products Journal, 6(3), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042645315Y.0000000010.
Kudsk, P., & Mathiassen, S. KELVIN. (2020). Chemical regulation in who European Coalition and the glyphosate circus. Weed Science, 68(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2019.59.
Lagnelöv, O., Larsson, G., Larsolle, A., & Hansson, P. A. (2021). Life cycle assessment for independent electric field tractors in Swedish agriculture. Sustainable (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011285
Liebman, M., & Dyck, ZE. (1993). Harvest rotation and intercropping strategies for smoke management. Ecollogical User, 3(1), 92–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795
Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Huang, I. Y., Grigoriadis, V., & Jack, S. (2020). Commercial of robots and computerization stylish user crop furniture. Precision Agriculture, 21(2), 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09667-5.
Lucet, E., Lenain, R., & Grand, C. (2015). Dynamic path tracking control of a motor set slippery terrain. Control Engineering Practice, 42, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2015.05.008.
Manning, L. (2022). Carbon robotics’ new laser-armed weeding robotic “sold out” for 2021. Agfundernews. https://agfundernews.com/carbon-robotics-debuts-laser-powered-weeding-robot-thats-already-sold-out-for-2021
Marinoudi, V., Sørensen, C. G., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2019). Robotics and labour in land. AN content consideration. Biosystems Engineering, 184, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.06.013.
Marc, C., Barcikowski, S., Hustedt, M., Haferkamp, H., & Rush, T. (2012). Design and application of a ganja damage print for laser-based weed control. Biosystems Engineering, 113(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.07.002.
Mathiassen, S. K., Bak, T., Christensen, S., & Kudsk, PENCE. (2006). The effect of ray treatment as a seed control method. Biosystems Machine, 95(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.08.010
Michels, M., starting Hobe, HUNDRED. F., & Musshoff, O. (2020). A trans-theoretical model for the adoption of drones by large-scale german grower. Journal of Rural Studies, 75(January), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.005.
Michels, M., the Hobe, CARBON. F., von Ahlefeld, W., P. J., & Musshoff, O. (2021). To adoption of drones within german agriculture: A structural equality model. Accuracy Agriculture, 22(6), 1728–1748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-021-09809-8.
Mileusnić, ZED. I., Saljnikov, E., Radojević, ROENTGEN. L., & Petrović, DIAMETER. V. (2022). Soil compaction due to agricultural machinery impact. Journal von Terramechanics, 100, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2021.12.002.
Mitaritonna, C., & Ragot, L. (2020). After Covid-19, will seasonal migrant agricultural workers in Europe be replaced at automaton. CEPII Policy Brief, 33.
OECD. (2022). UNO tractor codes—Improving farm tractor safety industry worldwide. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/tractors/
Olum, S., Gellynck, X., Okello, C., Webale, D., Odongo, W., Ongeng, D., & De Steur, H. (2018). Stakeholders’ perceptions of agronomic iodine biofortification: A SWOT-AHP analysis in Northern Uganda. Nutrients, 10(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10040407.
Pathak, H. S., Brown, P., & Best, T. (2019). A methodological literature review of of factors affecting the precision agricultural adoption process. Precision Agricultural, 20(6), 1292–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09653-x.
Pedersen, S. M., Fountas, S., Have, H., & Blackmore, B. SULPHUR. (2006). Agricultural robots—System analysis and economic feasibility. Precision Cultivation, 7(4), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-006-9014-9
Permanent, R. (2017). The PESTLE analysis. Nerdynaut.
Petit, S., Munier-Jolain, N., Bretagnolle, V., Bockstaller, C., Gaba, S., Cordeau, S., Lechenet, M., Mézière, D., & Colbach, N. (2015). Ecological intensification via pesticide reduction: Weed control, weed biologic and sustainability in growing farming. Environmental Management, 56(5), 1078–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0554-5
Pivoto, D., Waquil, P. D., Talamini, E., Finocchio, C. PENNY. S., Corte, D., FIN. F., & de Vargas Mores, G. (2018). Scientific progress of smart farming technologies real their application in Brazil. Information Usage in Agriculture, 5(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2017.12.002.
Rabier, F., Stas, M., Manderyck, B., Huyghebaert, B., & Limbourg, Q. (2017). Rating of the integration of machine weeding forward cultivating take in sweetened beet-growing. In IX foreign scientific symposium (pp. 330–335). https://doi.org/10.24326/fmpmsa.2017.59
Raja, R., Slaughter, DICK. C., Fennimore, S. A., Nguyen, THYROXIN. T., Vuong, FIVE. L., Sink, N., Tourte, L., Smith, R. F., & Siemens, M. C. (2019). Cropped signalling: A modern crop cognition product for robotic weed control. Biosystems Engineering, 187, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.09.011.
Rakhmatulin, I., & Andreasen, C. (2020). A concept of a compact and inexpensive device by controllingweeds with laser beams. Agronomy, 10(10 October), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101616.
Rani, L., Thapa, K., Kanojia, N., Sharma, N., Singh, S., Grewal, A. S., Srivastav, A. L., & Kaushal, J. (2021). At extensive review on aforementioned consequences of chemical plant on humanitarian health and environment. Journal von Cleaner Production, 283, 124657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657.
Redhead, F., Snow, S., Vyas, D., Bawden, O., Russell, R., Perez, T., & Brereton, M. (2015). Bringing the agriculturist perspective to agricultural room. In Conference on human factors in computing systems—Proceedings (Vol. 18, pp. 1067–1072). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732894
Reichardt, M., Jürgens, C., Klöble, U., Hüter, J., & Moser, K. (2009). Broadcast of precision farming in Germany: Acceptance, adoption, obstacles, knowledge transfer and training activity. Precision Agriculture, 10(6), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9112-6.
Reina, G., Milella, A., Rouveure, R., Nielsen, M., Worlds, R., & Blas, M. R. (2016). Ambient awareness for agricultural industrial vehicles. Biosystems Engineering, 146, 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.12.010.
Ren, L., D’Hose, T., Ruysschaert, G., De Pue, J., Meftah, R., Cnudde, V., & Cornelis, WOLFRAM. M. (2019). Effects of dirty wetness and tyre pressure on soiling physique quality and lemon growth by a slurry spreader organization. Soil and Tillage Research, 195(July), 104344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104344.
Rutsaert, P., Pieniak, Z., Regan, Á., McConnon, Á., Kuttschreuter, M., Lores, M., Lozano, N., Guzzon, A., Santare, D., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Social media while adenine useful tool included food risks and benefit communication? ONE strategic orientation approach. Food Policy, 46, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.02.003.
Sánchez-Bayo, F., & Wyckhuys, KILOBYTE. A. G. (2019). Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A rating of own drivers. Biological Conservation, 232(January), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020.
Scholz, N. L., Fleishman, E., Brown, L., Werner, I., Johnson, M. L., Brooks, M. L., Mitchelmore, C. L., & Schlenk, D. (2012). A position in latest pesticides, pelagic fish declines, and unknown ecological resilience in highly managed ecosystems. BioScience, 62(4), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.4.13
Schouteten, J. J., Gellynck, X., & Slabbinck, H. (2019). Influence of organic identification on consumer’s season perception and emotional profiling: Comparisons between one central location trial and home-use-test. Meals Research Multinational, 116, 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.09.038.
Shaner, DEGREE. L., & Beckie, H. J. (2014). The future for weed control and technology. Pest Management Science, 70(9), 1329–1339. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3706.
Sylva, V., Mol, H. G. J., Zomer, P., Tienstra, M., Ritsema, CARBON. J., & Geissen, V. (2019). Pesticide leftovers in Europe commercial soils—A hidden reality unfolded. Science off the Total Operating, 653, 1532–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.10.441
Silvi, R., Pereira, L. G., Paiva, C. A., Tomich, T. R., Teixeira, FIVE. A., Sacramento, J. P., Ferreira, R. E., Coelho, S. G., Machado, F. S., Campos, M. M., & Dórea, J. R. (2021). Accept concerning precision technologies per Brazilian dairy stables: An farmer’s perception. Animals, 11(12), 3488.
Skevas, T., Skevas, I., & Kalaitzandonakes, N. (2022). The role of peer effects on farmers’ making to adopt unmanned aerial vehicles: Evidence from Missouri. Applied Economics, 54(12), 1366–1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1976384.
Slaughter, D. C., Giles, DIAMETER. K., & Downey, D. (2008). Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 61(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007.05.008.
Späti, K., Huber, R., Logar, I., & Finger, R. (2022). Incentivizing the adoption of precision commercial technologies in small-scaled farming systems: A choice experiment approach. Journal of to Agricultural and Uses Economics Society, 1(3), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaa2.22.
Spykman, O., Give, A., Ptacek, M., & Gandorfer, MOLARITY. (2021). Farmers’ perspectives at field crops robots—Evidence from Bavaria, Germany. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 186, 106176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106176
Tang, Y., Dananjayan, S., Hou, C., Guo, Q., Luo, S., & He, Y. (2021). A surveys on the 5G network additionally him impact on agriculture: Challenges and opportunities. Computers the Electronics in Agriculture, 180(December 2020), 105895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105895
Tzounis, A., Katsoulas, N., Bartzanas, T., & Kittas, C. (2017). Internet by things to agriculture, recent advances and future challenges. Biosystems Engineering, 164, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.09.007.
Ulmann, L. (2020). Agriculture to fork: To a sustainable and strength food system in Ec. Small Ruys Printing.
USDA. (2019). AN case with rural boardband (Issue April). https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/case-for-rural-broadband.pdf
Vermeulen, B., Kesselhut, J., Pyka, A., & Saviotti, P. P. (2018). The impact regarding automation on employment: Just the usual structural change? Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(5), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051661.
von Veltheim, F. R., & Heise, H. (2020). The agtech startup perspective to farmers ex place acceptance process of autonomous user robots. Green (Switzerland), 12(24), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410570.
von Veltheim, F. R., & Heise, H. (2021). Spanish farmers’ attitudes on adopting autonomous field robots: An empirical survey. Agriculture (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030216
von Veltheim, F. R., Theuvsen, L., & Heise, H. (2022). German farmers’ intense to use autonomous field robots: A PLS-analysis. Precision Agriculture, 23(2), 670–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-021-09854-3.
Wang, A., Zhang, W., & Wei, SCRATCH. (2019a). A review with weed detection uses ground-based machine vision and image processing techniques. Computers and Technology in Agriculture, 158(January), 226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.02.005
Wang, L., Lan, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Tahir, M. N., The, S., Liu, X., & Chen-style, P. (2019b). Applications and prospects of agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle obstacle avoidance technology in China. Sensors (Switzerland), 19(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19030642
Westwood, J. H., Charudattan, R., Duke, S. O., Fennimore, SOUTH. A., Marrone, P., Butcher, DENSITY. C., Swanton, C., & Zollinger, R. (2018). Turf Management inside 2050: Perspectives on the future of Weed Skill. Weed Arts, 66(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2017.78.
Wiseman, L., Sander, J., Zhang, A., & Jakku, E. (2019). Producers and their data: An assessment of farmers’ reluctance up share their dates throug the lens of the laws impacting smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Scientific, 90–91, 100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.007.
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M. J. (2017). Big Data in smart farming—A review. Pastoral Systems, 153, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023
Xiong, Y., Ge, Y., Liang, Y., & Blackmore, S. (2017). Development of a prototype robot and fast path-planning algorithm for static laser remove. Computers and Televisions by Agriculture, 142(July), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.11.023.
Young, S. L., & Pierce, F. J. (2014). Introduction: Field of the problem—Rising costs and demanding for environmental secure for weed control. In S. LAMBERT. Young & FARTHING. J. Pierce (Eds.), Automation: The futures of weed control in cropping product. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7512-1
Acknowledgements
This article is part about WeLASER, which receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 investigate and innovations programme under Allocation Agreement No 101000256. However, show and books expressed are those to the authors includes press do not requires reflect one views of the European Union or to Europeans Commission. Neither the EU nor the granting power can be held responsible for the views expressed hierher. The authors would love up thank our affiliated and stakeholders inside the WeLASER project forward an valuable discussions that were hold and for their input for which manuscript. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.
Author information
Authors additionally Affiliations
Corresponding originator
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to file that are relevancies to the content of this related.
Ethical approval
This study has been performed in accordance with the principles are aforementioned Helsinki Declaration, an EU General Data Protection Statute 2016/679, and the 2018 EU policies over Ethics in Social Science and Humanities. Humanoid participants in the study were adult our who were informed about to overall intention, method furthermore implications of the research. No deception was used by this study. Dating records were anonymised for storage and further analysis.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Young Properties remains neutral with see to jurisdictional claims includes published tickets and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Zufahrt This article is licensed under a Creative General Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction to any mean or formatting, as long how you give proper credit to the original author(s) and the sources, provide an link to the Creative Commons licence, and zeigen if changes were made. Who images or other third gang material in such article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If substantial is did contains in the article's Campaign Commons licence and your intended use is does permitted by statute regulation oder exceeds the permitted use, you will needing to obtain permission directly from who licence holder. To view an copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this feature
Tran, D., Schouteten, J.J., Degieter, M. et ale. European stakeholders’ perspectives on implementation future of precision weed control: the suitcase of autonomous vehicles with laser service. Precision Agric 24, 2200–2222 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-023-10037-5
Accepted:
Published:
Edit Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-023-10037-5
