New technology to utilise and suppress weeds for sustainable maize production

New technology to utilise and suppress weeds for sustainable maize production | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article New technology to utilise and suppress weeds for sustainable maize production Kaixian Wu, Shiyong Zhou, Guang Zeng, Hongli Yang, Bozhi Wu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5317116/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Across the agricultural chronicle, mankind has relentlessly pursued myriad strategies to vanquish weeds and avert yield diminishment. Yet, a pragmatic technology adept at leveraging weeds as a beneficial biological resource, without compromising crop yields, has remained elusive. Our study unveils an innovative Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (ITUSW) for sustainable maize cultivation. ITUSW ingeniously harnesses inter-row weed biomass and curtails intra-row weeds, attaining sustainable maize yields without sacrifice, outshining conventional global weed management practices. This technology amalgamates a spectrum of non-chemical weed suppression tactics into a practical system, harmonizing with globally recognized sustainable agricultural principles. By championing ITUSW, this research propels agriculture towards enhanced sustainability, redefining weeds from foes to allies, safeguarding yields and the environment. Scientific community and society/Agriculture Biological sciences/Ecology/Agroecology Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Throughout agricultural history, weeds have posed a substantial impediment to crop productivity, with yield reductions potentially reaching 30%, surpassing losses attributed to pests and diseases 1 , 2 . In response, humans have aggressively combatted weeds, devising a range of strategies including chemical interventions, physical and biological controls, as well as cultural practices for their eradication. Nevertheless, weeds persist, and the yield loss challenge endures. The relentless war on weeds has inadvertently unleashed a gamut of environmental concerns, notably including biodiversity loss 3 , the emergence of invasive and herbicide-resistant weed populations 4 , and is further exacerbated by intensifying agricultural practices and global environmental transformations 5 , 6 as well as rapid urbanisation and workforce deficiencies in developing nations 7 . While weeds are acknowledged as a repository of biological wealth, and their broad distribution and copious biomass hold promise for applications such as feed, soil enrichment, herbal remedies, and as a nectar source for pollinators, realising their potential without compromising crop productivity remains an elusive aspiration. Weeds, as herbaceous plants, potentially influence ecosystem structure and function by functioning as primary producers. The documented significance of herbaceous plants in forest ecosystems and marine habitats underscores their ecological importance 8 , while in grassland ecosystems, these plants’ foundational role is paramount for upholding ecological integrity, and is garnering increasing recognition 9 . Nonetheless, herbaceous plants, commonly designated as weeds in agricultural contexts, frequently face removal, and the division between grassland and agricultural land usage persists. Although integrated crop-livestock systems occasionally incorporate grass phases 10 , 11 , practices such as co-cultivation of crops with herbaceous species or weed retention alongside crops, and crop cultivation on native grasslands, remain infrequent observations. This scarcity of integration is largely attributed to the entrenched view of weeds competitively consuming vital resources like nutrients, water, and sunlight, alongside their allelopathic capacity to impede crop development 12 . Empirical studies have highlighted a spatial effect of weed-crop competition 13 , 14 , implying potential for resource exploitation in areas where competitive pressure from weeds is negligible. The application of living mulches in orchards stands as a comparable innovation in weed exploitation strategies, effectively suppressing suppressing weed proliferation 15 , 16 , fostering soil health and moisture retention, and boosting fruit yield 17 , 18 . Nevertheless, distinct from orchard settings, the dissimilarities in crop composition, planting configurations, and soil management protocols in arable landscapes pose unique challenges to weed utilisation. Specifically, heightened biological resemblance between crops and weeds in farmland exacerbates competitive pressures; the confined row spacing hampers mechanized weed control measures. Despite documented instances of intercropping employing living mulches, particularly legumes, amidst crop rows 19 , 20 , prevailing research practices necessitate manual establishment of cover crops. This approach entails elevated costs and underutilises weeds’ potential for soil enrichment, biodiversity enhancement, carbon sequestration, and self-suppression of weed populations. Excessive implementation of intercropped cover crops or grass strips may also infringe upon cropping zones, thereby restricting land availability 21 . Consequently, the domain of prospective methodologies and technological advancements aimed at leveraging weeds as a valuable asset within agricultural ecosystems stands as a formidable frontier, laden with challenges. Here we provided an Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (ITUSW), which integrates crop configuration, soil tillage, mechanical weeding and straw utilisation, and comprises five principal steps. In brief, maize is planted in ultra-wide rows (100 cm apart) with two plants per hill on strip-tillage beds. Inter-row weeds are allowed to grow naturally. These weeds are mowed during maize’s seedling, tillering, and flowering stages. The cut material, combined with the previous year’s maize stover laid on the inter-rows, is then used as a mulch over the maize rows, eventually returning to the soil through the practice of strip-tillage. Results New Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds To gauge the efficacy of the innovative technology, we executed an experiment comparing it with prevalent contemporary methods. During a five-year experimental span (Experiment 1), our findings disclosed that yield under ITUSW regime did not statistically differ from those achieved by Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding (MFW), Chemical Weeding (CW), Chemical Weeding plus Straw Return (CWSR), and Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing (MHW), yet they significantly surpassed those of Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching (CWSM). The unaffected maize yield under ITUSW is corroborated by sustained growth performance (Fig. 1 B-C; Fig. 2 C-F; Fig. 3 ; Table S1 ). These outcomes demonstrate that ITUSW maintains maize productivity on par with conventional practices, and in some instances, offers superior performance. In comparison to conventional weed control practices, ITUSW not only suppressed weed growth intra-row but also stimulated substantial biomass increments inter-row (Fig. 2 ; Table S1 ). Above-ground intra-row weed biomass under ITUSW was notably reduced compared to MFW, resembling levels observed in other treatments. Conversely, inter-row weed biomass experienced substantial elevations to 448 g/m 2 through maize growth season, specifically by 9.89-, 5.14-, 4.36-, and 3.51-fold in contrast to SWSM, CW, MHW, and MFW, respectively. By the study’s fifth year, a substantial increase in weed root biomass was observed both within the crop rows managed under ITUSW and in the inter-row spaces. The apex of this increase, reaching up to 85.6 times, was documented at inter-row. The sustained biomass under natural growth conditions paves the way for the valorization of weeds as a valuable resource. For instance, ITUSW notably reduces soil penetration resistance, while enhancing fertility through increased levels of soil organic matter, available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, outperforming all other methods except for phosphorus and potassium in CWSM, and for soil penetration resistance and bulk density in MFW and CWSM (Table 1 and Fig. 3 ). Table 1 Improvement of soil quality within the crop row under ITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds) after five years of experimentation: Comparison with conventional methods based on chemical properties, penetration resistance (0–30 cm soil depth), and bulk density . Treatments SOM (g/kg) Available N (mg/kg) Available P (mg/kg) Available K (mg/kg) Soil penetration resistance (MPa) Bulk density (g/cm 3 ) 0–10 cm 10–20 cm 20–30 cm 0–10 cm 10–20 cm 20–30 cm MFW 25.5 ± 4.3c 115 ± 20bc 20.2 ± 2.6bc 167 ± 48bc 1.03 ± 0.29c 1.62 ± 0.51d 2.45 ± 0.44a 1.09 ± 0.04bc 1.23 ± 0.06a 1.29 ± 0.04abc CWSM 31.2 ± 3.3b 123 ± 9b 22.9 ± 4.2ab 189 ± 19ab 1.77 ± 0.59a 2.08 ± 0.46a 2.47 ± 0.50a 1.11 ± 0.04abc 1.25 ± 0.05a 1.26 ± 0.04bc ITUSW 35.4 ± 5.3a 138 ± 8a 25.6 ± 4.8a 203 ± 25a 1.01 ± 0.26c 1.40 ± 0.37e 1.94 ± 0.35c 1.06 ± 0.04c 1.16 ± 0.06b 1.24 ± 0.09c CW 22.3 ± 2.6c 99 ± 12d 19.5 ± 3.4bc 152 ± 23c 1.16 ± 0.35b 1.77 ± 0.49c 2.33 ± 0.43b 1.16 ± 0.04a 1.28 ± 0.05a 1.33 ± 0.03a MHW 23.9 ± 4.1c 107 ± 14cd 17.0 ± 2.1c 155 ± 28c 1.22 ± 0.27b 1.89 ± 0.43b 2.36 ± 0.46ab 1.12 ± 0.08ab 1.25 ± 0.08a 1.32 ± 0.06ab F -values Treatments (T) 16.877 * 11.109 * 7.851 * 4.947 * 103.927 * 46.472 * 29.791 * 4.185 * 4.625 * 3.882 * Year (Y) ------- ------- ------- ------- 23.313 * 32.265 * 9.174 * ------- ------- ------- T×Y ------- ------- ------- ------- 8.091 * 2.604 * 2.639 * ------- ------- ------- This table presents the enhancement of soil quality achieved through ITUSW, in comparison to conventional weed control practices, namely CW (Chemical Weeding), MFW (Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding), CWSM (Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching), and MHW (Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing). SOM: Soil Organic Matter; * significant at P < 0.05. Values (means ± S.D.) in a column sharing the same letter (means ± S.D.) do not differ significantly at P < 0.05. Design of the innovative technology (ITUSW) Distance between weed and maize The foundational premise of our novel technology is rooted in the notion that weed competition predominantly occurs in proximity to the crop’s root zone, whereas beyond this immediate vicinity, their impact may either be negligible or potentially beneficial. To empirically substantiate this hypothesis, we embarked on a field trial (Experiment 2). We found that maize yields peaking at wider spacings up to 35 cm before plateauing. Yield reductions of 25–43% due to intense weed competition were concentrated within a 15 cm interval, notably at 0–5 cm, whereas spacings over 25 cm showed negligible yield variation (Fig. S6A). This pattern of yield response to weed competition mirrors that observed in biomass production (Fig. S6B-E). Weed root mass diminished significantly as spacing widened, exhibiting no change between 0 cm and 5 cm, but exceeding values at 10–40 cm, except between 30 cm and 40 cm. Inversely, maize root biomass rose significantly with increasing spacing, with 0–10 cm spacings yielding significantly less biomass compared to 15–40 cm intervals (Fig. S7; Table S3). These insights propose that optimizing maize yield involves strategic weed management within 0–25 cm and potentially harnessing weed benefits in the beyond 25 cm range. Crop layout The innovation in our technology’s design centres on targeted weed management immediately adjacent to or within maize rows, while harnessing the potential of weeds growing between rows. To achieve this, initial measures broadened row spacing to 100 cm, which facilitate greater inter-row weed development, ease mechanical weeding operations, and open avenues for exploiting weed resources. This broader spacing also concentrate fertiliser application around clustered maize plants, optimising nutrient utilisation. To address the potential increase in intraspecific competition and its consequent yield reduction in wider row configurations, we conducted a field experiment with varied crop layouts (Experiment 3). Relative to narrow row configurations, wide row significantly depressed maize yield and growth performance. But dual plants per hole, under wide row layout, increased yield and growth performance (Table. S4). This finding suggests the dual plants per hole strategy mitigates the adverse effects of wide row arrangements. Moreover, without weed control, inter-row weed biomass in wide rows configuration was significantly higher than in narrow rows, indicating that expanding the row spacing promote weed production. Precision managements for intra- and inter row weeds To fully utilise the benefits of weeds at inter-row spaces while effectively controlling those within the intra-row areas, distinct management strategies are required. Inter-row weed growth is facilitated by adopting no-tillage practices and mild control with mowing, concurrently suppressing intra-row weeds and enhancing maize growth through targeted tillage approach. Inter-row weed biomass and maize straw were strategically utilised as mulch on the soil surface within rows, further suppressing intra-row weeds and promoting a self-inhibiting effect on weed growth. In subsequent seasons, the weed residues and maize straw are reincorporated into the soil within rows through tillage practices. To elucidate the effects of weed occurrence and straw coverage at distinct sites within the ITUSW methodology, field experiments were undertaken (Experiment 4). Based on the ITUSW protocol, herbicide-based inter-row weed elimination (CW-combined, CW-inter), not the intra-row herbicidal weed control (CW-intra) led to significant decreases in yield and growth performance, implying a beneficial effect of inter-row weeds and mulch on maize growth (Fig. 4 A, C-G; Table S5). Additionally, the removal of weed straw mulch from both intra-row and inter-row zones (RSM) significantly intensified yield suppression and growth reduction, suggesting that the application of weed straw cover within crop rows either promotes maize growth or that its overall benefits outweigh the competitive inhibition imposed by intra-row weeds. We also found that weed residue coverage efficiently curbs weed expansion within crop rows (Fig. 4 B, C-G). Under ITUSW, intra-row weed shoot biomass was less than RSM and CW-inter, greater than CW-combined, and matched CW-intra statistically. Subsurface, root biomass under ITUSW exceeded CW-intra within rows, though was inferior to CW-inter and CW-combined, with no significant distinction from CW-combined. Besides, preserving inter-row weeds and their straw mulch improve soil quality. At 10–30 cm depth in intra-row zone, ITUSW shows lower soil penetration resistance, and herbicide use significantly elevates bulk density versus no treatment (Table S6). Regarding chemical properties for intra-row soil, ITUSW also showed significantly higher organic matter, available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content than CW-inter, CW-combined, and RSM, without significant difference from CW-intra (Table. S7). However, weed and its residues covering have an inconsistent effect on pest and disease (Table. S8). Suitability for winter land use To assess the compatibility of ITUSW with winter land use, a field study was executed, incorporating wheat planting and tillage practices under the ITUSW regime (Experiment 5). Fig. S8, Table S9-10 illustrate ITUSW Coupled with Conventional Winter Tillage Preceding Wheat Sowing (ITUSW + WCT) and ITUSW Paired with Winter Strip Tillage before Wheat Planting (ITUSW + WST), compared to Chemical Weeding plus Wheat Planting (CWW), have no significant impact on maize yield. Simultaneously, both ITUSW + WCT and ITUSW + WST maintain wheat yield, with ITUSW + WCT demonstrating a significant yield increase. So no statistically significant difference was observed in the aggregate yield of maize and wheat across ITUSW + WST, ITUSW + WCT, and CWW. For weed production, shoot weed biomass within crop rows remained unaffected by either winter land use strategies or weed management practices. Notably, inter-row weed biomass was higher in ITUSW and ITUSW + WST than in ITUSW + WCT. Furthermore, ITUSW demonstrated significantly elevated weed root biomass in the inter-row zone, outperforming CW, CWW, and ITUSW + WCT. These results suggest that integrating winter wheat in ITUSW systems preserves overall crop yield, while diminishing weed proliferation. Collectively, ITUSW is compatible with winter cropping systems. Discussion This study demonstrate that ITUSW, compared to conventional global weed control practices, diminishes or eradicates the reliance on herbicides and agricultural films, concurrently maintaining maize yields. Notably, it markedly boosts production compared to no-tillage systems reliant on herbicides (CWSM), a conservation agriculture practice. Excessive use of herbicides and agricultural films, which compromise biodiversity, degrade soil health, and heighten food safety concerns, significantly hinder sustainable development 22 , 23 . This situation is further exacerbated by an alarming global escalation in herbicide consumption 7 , 24 . Considering maize’s status as one of the globe’s most extensively cultivated crops, this innovation holds vast promise for progressing sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, our findings may spur analogous technological advancements in other crops sharing maize’s biological characteristics, such as sugarcane and sorghum, facilitating effective weed management across fields. The interventions synergistically integrate multiple weed suppression tactics sans chemicals: mechanical control, tillage, mulching, and enhancing crop competitive strength. However, in simpler terms, the underlying principle of our technology rests on the insight that weed-crop competition is variable, largely influenced by the distance between weeds and crops. Studies have shown that intra-row weeds in maize cause lesser yield reduction compared to inter-row weeds 25 . But earlier investigations did not ascertain the critical distance at which weed competition with crops begins, given row spacing not exceeding 80 cm, a scenario in which maize gains a competitive advantage via shading. Our study, employing 200 cm row spacing with intervals between weeds and maize plants ranging from 0 cm to 100 cm, revealed that optimizing maize yield involves strategic weed management within 0–25 cm and potentially harnessing weed benefits in the beyond 25 cm range. This discovery has the potential to transform our views and comprehension of weed ecology, leading to a strategic shift in weed management. A pivotal insight suggests focusing weed control adjacent to crop rows, as opposed to blanket coverage across the field. Presently, diverse non-chemical approaches are in use, such as surface coverage, soil tillage, mechanical weeding, seed bank manipulation, fostering crop competitiveness 26 , However, these practices face challenges in applications. For instance, plastic mulching introduces environmental risks associated with plastic debris 27 . Traditional soil cultivation techniques posing a risk of inducing soil erosion. Mechanical mowing within narrow crop rows proves impracticable, risking crop injury 28 . These limitations curtail the broad-scale uptake of individual non-chemical methods 29 , 30 . Remarkably, ITUSW integrates diverse non-chemical weed control methodologies, addressing their inherent constraints, to develop an integrated weed management strategy that is both pragmatic and influential. By utilising strip-tillage, this innovative technique alleviates soil erosion linked with conventional tillage methods and substitutes plastic mulching with covers composed of weed and crop residues, thereby diminishing plastic pollution. Contrary to traditional mechanical weeding practices, ITUSW enhances the ease of mechanical operations and facilitates efficient inter-row weed management, primarily due to its wide row spacing and focus on mowing inter-row weeds. Moreover, the retention of intact branch and leaf structures of weed plants in ITUSW contrasts with the overly dispersed and fine debris characteristic of traditional mechanical weeding. This ensures precise intra-row coverage, thereby fully leveraging the mulch’s benefits. The novel technology integrates not only a suite of weed management strategies but also pivotal sustainable agricultural practices embraced globally, encompassing conservation agriculture, crop straw recycling, and agricultural biodiversity exploitation. Whether focusing on weed control or other sustainability measures, this technology remedies several limitations inherent in standalone approaches. Firstly, conservation agriculture, centred on minimal tillage and surface mulching, leans heavily on herbicides for weed suppression 4 , 31 ; conversely, our technology employs strip tillage paired with a surface cover composed of accumulated thick straw from weeds and maize, efficaciously suppressing weed proliferation. Secondly, usual straw return practices often entail burying fresh straw, which can provoke severe pest infestations, high soil nutrient depletion, and challenges in straw decomposition. Conversely, our method situates straw atop the soil, enabling it to desiccate naturally over time, followed by its reincorporation into the soil in the following season, thus bypassing common straw return obstacles and optimising straw use efficiency. Finally, conventional strategies for augmenting farmland biodiversity, such as intercropping, crop rotation, and mixed cropping, generally yield modest species diversification, typically numbering between three and five species. In contrast, our technology transcends these limitations, introducing more than five unique species, as observed in field (Fig. 1 B and Fig. 4 C), thereby approximating natural biodiversity levels and fostering comprehensive ecological diversity across farmland. Consequently, our technology stands as a unique and groundbreaking innovation, transcending a mere aggregation of prevailing practices. It holds the potential to accelerate the implementation of contemporary sustainable agriculture methodologies, thereby contributing significantly to the global advancement of sustainable agricultural development. In practice, the novel technology exhibit substantial potential, manifesting across various domains. Firstly, weeds represent an economical organic matter reservoir, alleviating pressures from the scarcity of organic fertilisers. Globally, agricultural soils have experienced a decline in organic content, partly due to the limited availability of cost-efficient organic fertiliser options 32 . In contrast to chemical fertilisers, organic varieties face challenges primarily due to their inconvenient for application and increased transportation costs. The technology we introduce, however, enables on-site production, thereby overcoming these issues. Furthermore, utilising weeds as an organic fertiliser source avoids the potential safety concerns linked to contaminants, such as antibiotics, heavy metals, and microplastics, commonly encountered in conventionally derived fertilisers 33 , 34 . Secondly, agricultural soils’ role as major emitters of greenhouse gases globally is significant. New technology shows an annual increase of 2.25 tonnes of weed biomass per hectare over traditional methods, equivalent to sequestering 0.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare yearly 35 , revealing substantial mitigation potential. Finally, soil erosion in farmland represents a pressing threat to sustainable agriculture. Notably, herbaceous plant cover serves as a robust barrier to erosion, significantly mitigating its effects 31 . Our technology introduces an advanced grass strip intercropping system, characterized by denser strips and the implementation of no-till practices, thereby enhancing ground cover in cropped areas and proving pivotal in the fight against soil erosion. Nonetheless, several aspects warrant consideration for the broad-scale deployment of this novel technology. Chief among them, the potential increase in management costs and energy usage may raise financial concerns among growers. Consequently, the design of efficient operational tools becomes imperative. We argue that the advent of agricultural machinery and digital solutions, integrating weed management and soil coverage, is pivotal to render this innovation economically feasible. Importantly, the technology, while comprehensive and adaptable, avoids unnecessary complexity. Moreover, it introduces potential cost reductions, such as diminished tillage needs and lowered fertilizer and herbicide inputs, contrasting traditional practices. Secondly, field weeds can act as reservoirs for plant pathogens 36 , potentially heightening crop health risks 37 . Conversely, emerging evidence suggests that diverse weed populations can promote biodiversity, mitigating disease pressures 38 , 39 . Our study did not document a marked rise in maize pest and disease incidence linked to the technology (Fig. S5); however, further studies are needed to clarify the circumstances under which weed presence might exacerbate such issues. Furthermore, the integration of this technology with prevailing agricultural practices, such as fertilization, cultivar selection, soil improvement, and irrigation management, should be vigorously pursued to achieve the goal of significantly enhancing yields, reducing costs, and optimizing resource utilization. Methods Experimental site Field experiments were carried out between 2017 and 2023 at the Daheqiao Agricultural Experiment Station of Yunnan Agricultural University, situated in Xundian, Yunnan Province, southwest China (103°16′41′′E, 25°31′07′N). Located at an elevation of 1860 metres above sea level, this site experiences a mean annual temperature of 14.4°C and receives a mean annual precipitation of 906.5 mm, primarily concentrated from May through September (Fig. S1 ). The soil type, as classified by the Chinese Soil Taxonomy, is a silty clay loam.The soil layer at a depth of 0–20 cm exhibited a pH of 7.92, with total nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) contents amounting to 1.09 g/kg, 0.82 g/kg, and 19.07 g/kg, respectively. The available forms of N, P, and K measured were 90.10 mg/kg, 10.74 mg/kg, and 143.66 mg/kg, respectively. The soil organic matter content was determined to be 22.97 g/kg. Experimental design Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (Experiment 1) We have developed an Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (ITUSW), which integrates approaches to crop configuration, soil tillage, weed control, and straw utilisation. The technology comprises five principal steps, partly illustrated in Fig. S2. Initially, maize is planted with an augmented row spacing of 100 cm, adopting a dual plants configuration per planting hole with 2–5 cm distance. After harvest, maize straw is reduced to segments of 3–4 cm and consistently dispersed over the soil surface amidst the rows. In the second stage, preceding the next maize planting season, strip tillage is conducted along the pre-established crop rows using a rotary tiller. The operation entails tilling to a width of 40 cm and a depth of 16–18 cm, while concurrently maintaining a 60 cm no-till strip between rows. The third step sees the reseeding of maize in accordance with the widened-row, dual plants scheme. Maize straw is then relocated from inter-row spaces to cover the 40 cm tilled strip alongside each row during the V5 growth stage of maize, a process facilitated by raking. In the third stage, maize for the subsequent season is resown employing a widened-row, dual plants configuration. Upon reaching the V5 growth stage, preceding maize straw is transferred from inter-row spaces to envelop the 40 cm-wide tilled strips adjacent to each row, a process assisted by raking. During the fourth phase, weeds between the rows are trimmed at the maize’s V4-5, V7-8, and V17-R1 growth stages, leaving residual stems at 3 cm tall. The severed weed straw is manually laid onto the tilled 40 cm zone. In the course of the next year’s planting and primary tillage procedures, the weeds and maize straw blanketing the tilled strips are assimilated into the soil of the planting band. Throughout the maize growth cycle, weed emergence between rows is permitted without enforcing additional weed control measures. To gauge the efficacy of the innovative technology, we executed an experiment comparing it with prevalent contemporary methods. Four control groups were established: Chemical Weeding (CW), Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding (MFW), Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching (CWSM), and Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing (MHW). Under CW, atrazine at 1.1 kg/ha was administered 10–15 days post-maize seedling emergence. For MFW, a 2-metre-wide film of designated thickness was spread atop planting rows at sowing, with edges sealed by soil and seedling holes punched post-emergence. MHW involved hand hoeing to remove weeds at growth stages V4-5 and V14-15. In CWSM, the soil remained untilled, topped with maize straw; herbicide application mirrored CW procedures. Acknowledging straw incorporation as a unique aspect of the integrated technology, an extra arm of Chemical Weeding plus Straw Return (CWSR) was introduced to discern if the observed ITUSW impacts were attributable to straw incorporation. Each plot, measuring 9.5 metres by 4.0 metres, was triplicated, with a fully randomised layout. The trial extended over a five-year timeframe, from 2019 through 2023. Distance effects between maize and weeds on plant competition (Experiment 2) To examine the impact of varying weed-to-maize plant distances on competitive interactions, a field study was conducted during 2017–2018 (Fig. S3). Maize was sown with rows spaced at 200 cm apart and intra-row spacing of 28 cm, adopting a double-planting scheme per hole. The intervals between weeds and maize plants were systematically varied, ranging from 0 cm to 100 cm, specifically at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 80, and 100 cm. Given the individual weed dimensions, it was postulated that their influential spatial extent primarily encompasses distances up to 60 cm; hence, within this critical zone, spacing increments of 5 cm were employed, transitioning to 20 cm increments beyond 60 cm. Throughout each distance treatment, manual weed control was executed every fortnight from maize emergence until flowering. The experimental design comprised 15 distinct treatments, each replicated thrice across 4 m by 6 m plots, with tillage and general field maintenance adhering to standard agricultural protocols. Effects of crop layout on maize yield and weed production (Experiment 3) During 2017–2018, a field experiment was undertaken to elucidate the effect of planting configurations on maize yield, considering two variables: row spacing (100 cm wide versus 60 cm narrow) and plants per hole (singular or dual plants). This setup yielded four distinct treatments, each replicated thrice. The experimental plots, measuring 4 m by 9 m, adhered to a complete randomisation design. Weed control conformed to production guidelines via herbicidal applications. Concurrently, to determine whether expanded row spacing encourages inter-row weed production, an auxiliary field experiment concentrated on contrasting row spacings of 100 cm and 60 cm, purposely forgoing weed control measures. In order to emulate standard growth environments for maize, manual weeding was confined to a 10 cm band around each plant during the early growth phase. These tests were also triplicated, employing 4 m by 6 m plot sizes and adopting a thorough randomised design. Spatial distribution and straw coverage effects of weeds (Experiment 4) To elucidate the effects of weed occurrence and straw coverage at distinct sites within the ITUSW methodology, field experiments were undertaken from 2019 to 2023. With ITUSW serving as the control, chemical weeding were applied to intra-row locales (CW-intra), inter-row zones (CW-inter), and in a combined intra-/inter-row scenario (CW-combined), in accordance with the ITUSW’s protocol ( Fig. 4 C-G ). Additionally, to gauge the independent contribution of straw mulch on planting zone, we added a treatment that maintain the weeds without the use of herbicides but remove straw mulch (RSM). Five distinct treatments were employed, each replicated thrice, across 4m x 9m plots, arranged in a comprehensive randomised design. To accurately direct herbicides to weeds within a predefined area and mitigate their off-target effects on maize, plastic baffles were utilised to isolate maize plants from surrounding weeds during herbicide applications. All remaining experimental designs adhering to ITUSW principles and associated management practices conformed to those outlined in Experiment 1. Sustainability of innovative technology for winter land use (Experiment 5) Between 2020 and 2023, a field study was conducted to evaluate the compatibility of ITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds) with winter cropping systems. Winter wheat was chosen as the model crop for this field-based inquiry. Three unique treatments, integrating wheat planting and tillage under ITUSW, were employed: ITUSW coupled with Conventional Winter Tillage Preceding Wheat Sowing (ITUSW + WCT); ITUSW paired with Winter Strip Tillage before Wheat Planting (ITUSW + WST); and ITUSW without winter cropping. Two conventional regimes served as controls: Chemical Weeding plus Wheat Planting (CWW) and Chemical Weeding without Wheat Planting (CW). For winter tillage interventions (ITUSW + WCT and ITUSW + WST)(Fig. S4), rotary tillage to a 18–20 cm depth preceded wheat seeding, adhering to standard practices (20 cm row spacing, 100% land utilisation). Under the ITUSW + WST regime, the winter strip tillage operation broadened the tilled zone from an initial 40 cm strip, bordering the maize planting row, to a width of 70 cm. Within this tilled band, wheat was sown at 20 cm intervals across four rows, attaining an 80% land utilisation rate. For both ITUSW + WCT and ITUSW + WST, wheat straw substituting maize straw for soil coverage in the maize root zone. These five treatments were replicated thrice, with 4 m by 9 m plots arranged under a complete randomisation scheme. Crop planting and field management In all experiments, the locally-adapted maize cultivar, Yunrui 668, prevalent in Southwest China, was utilised for field assessments. Planting occurred annually within the window of 25th April to 10th May. Wide row configurations featured 28 cm inter-plant spacing, hosting dual plants per hill, equating to 71,460 plants per hectare. Conversely, in narrow row arrangements (60 cm row spacing), a 23 cm inter-plant distance was adopted, reaching a density of 72,495 plants per hectare. Prior to sowing, the maize plot soil underwent rotary tillage to depths of 18–20 cm (No-till furrow sowing at a depth of 10 cm for CWSM); Seed placement at 4 cm depth was manual, with three seeds sown per hill, later thinned to a single plant at V5 stage. Within the "Sustainability of the integrated technology for winter land use" experiment, the indigenous wheat variety Fengmai 27 was annually sown between 10th and 20th November. Planting parameters comprised rows spaced at 20 cm intervals, a sowing density of 225 kg/ha, a seeding depth of 4 cm. In Experiments 1, 4 and 5, controlled-release fertilizer (790 kg/ha, NPK ratio: 24:6:10) was incorporated into the soil at depths of 4–5 cm during maize sowing (V4-5 stage) using a portable applicator, with no supplementary fertilization afterwards. In contrast, the Experiments 2 and 3 implemented staged nitrogen fertilization at sowing (72 kg/ha), jointing (48 kg/ha), and flowering (120 kg/ha), augmented by a singular application of phosphate (P 2 O 5 : 80 kg/ha) and potassium (K 2 O: 25 kg/ha) at sowing. Remarkably, the individual plant fertilizer dose in the former experiment paralleled that in the latter. Wheat received nitrogen at sowing (120 kg/ha) and regrowth (80 kg/ha), together with primary applications of phosphate (P 2 O 5 : 50 kg/ha) and potassium (K 2 O: 20 kg/ha). All fertilizers were surface-applied. Throughout the study period, crops were provided with adequate weed, pest, and disease management, as well as artificial irrigation to prevent water stress. Uniform 1-meter plot distances and drainage ditches alongside pathways were consistently maintained across all experiments. Samples and measurements Maize yield and growth parameters At maize maturation for all experiments, five rows (or all four rows in Experiment 2) of the wide-row configuration (1 m spacing) and eight rows of the uniform-spacing setup (0.6 m) were sampled. Ears were harvested, sun-dried until constant weight, and then threshed to determine grain mass. Concurrently, eight plants from the retained rows in each plot (within four rows for Experiment 2) were randomly selected and severed at the stalk base. Plant height and stem diameter at the midpoint of the second internode were measured with steel tapes and calipers, respectively. The plants were oven-dried at 60°C to constant weight for biomass calculations of both plant and grain. Plant biomass and harvest index (grain biomass to total plant biomass ratio) were derived from these measurements. In 2023, post-maize sampling in Experiments 1, 4 and 5, a root-soil composite (0.28 m × 0.23 m in the row direction for wide and narrow rows, respectively, and 0.20 m deep perpendicular to the row) was excavated using an iron shovel. Roots were meticulously separated, rinsed clean with tap water, dried, and weighed at 60°C. Similarly, in 2018 following Experiment 2, a root-soil sample (0.28 m width in row direction, 0.60 m perpendicular length, and 0.20 m depth) was obtained, focusing on the 0–40 cm spacing treatments. Root systems were processed as previously described for biomass quantification. The biomass of individual maize plants in wide rows with dual plants per hole was estimated accordingly. Regarding wheat in Experiment 5, eight rows were sampled, with grains threshed from ears and sun-dried for yield assessment. Additionally, three 0.5 m segments of rows (a single row in ITUSW + WCT and CWW; two adjacent rows bordering the no-till area in ITUSW + WST) were randomly picked. Whole plants were cut at soil level, sun-dried, and the combined seed and straw biomass was recorded. Weed production In Experiments 1, 4, and 5, weed biomass was quantified annually at seedling, flowering, and harvest stages using the quadrat method, with triplicate samplings (only at harvest stages for Experiment 3). All weeds enclosed within a wire-frame quadrat (0.25 m²) were clipped at ground level and subsequently dried to a constant weight at 60°C to ascertain above-ground biomass. Sampling of inter-row weeds occurred at all three growth stages, whereas intra-row weeds were sampled exclusively at harvest. Quadrat dimensions varied: for intra-row, quadrat measured 1.25 m × 0.2 m regardless of row width; for inter-row, quadrat was 0.5 m × 0.5 m for wide rows and adjusted to 0.36 m × 0.7 m for narrow rows, always positioned over 0.5 m from plot edges and at least 1 m apart. To compensate for sampled weeds, equivalent fresh biomass was trimmed alongside rows. In 2023, to gauge root biomass, nine random quadrat areas were sampled per plot, separately for intra- and inter-row weeds. Excavation to 20 cm depth, root extraction, washing, drying at 60°C, and weighing procedures were followed. During 2018’s Experiment 2, within treatments featuring 0–40 cm spacing, weed roots were precisely distinguished from maize roots during root biomass sampling. Following this, the roots underwent washing with tap water, oven-drying, and subsequent biomass determination. Soil quality In the maize harvest seasons spanning 2021 to 2023, soil penetration resistance within crop row for Experiment 1and Experiment 4 was measured at a 0–30 cm depth interval using a penetrometer (manufactured by Eijkelkamp, The Netherlands). Each measurement point was replicated tenfold. In autumn 2023 (After five years of experimentation), bulk density within crop row assessments involved collecting soil cores at depths of 0–5 cm, 15–20 cm, and 25–30 cm using a standardised 100 cm³ corer. Calculation of bulk density entailed dividing the dry soil mass by the known coring volume post-oven drying. Moreover, an exhaustive soil sampling protocol was implemented. Soil samples were systematically gathered from ten randomly selected points within crop row, pooled to create composite samples. This sampling procedure was replicated over three independent plots. After air-drying and sieving through a 2-mm sieve, these composite samples were subjected to chemical analysis. Organic matter content was approximated via thermogravimetry, tracking mass loss induced by heating. Available nitrogen was extracted with potassium sulfate and quantified using the Kjeldahl method; available phosphorus extraction employed ammonium acetate, with concentrations determined colorimetrically; similarly, available potassium was extracted and its concentration measured by flame photometry. Investigation of the pest and disease For Experiments 1 and 4, rust disease incidence on maize plants at the flowering stage was surveyed in 2020. Within each experimental plot, a sample of ten plants was meticulously inspected, with the number of leaves affected by rust meticulously recorded. In the subsequent year, 2021, an outbreak of Curculionoidea pests was observed during maize’s flowering phase. Here, fifteen plants per plot were randomly selected, and the abundance of weevils was enumerated. In both 2020 and 2023, significant damage attributed to Pyrausta nubilalis was detected during the maize seedling stage. Prior to pesticide application, a thorough inspection was conducted to enumerate pest-infested plants in every plot. The incidence of pest infestation was then calculated as a percentage, defined as the number of infested maize plants divided by the total maize plant population within the plot. Data analysis Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, incorporating treatment and experimental year as fixed factors, were employed to discern variations in crop growth, yield, weed biomass, soil properties, and the incidence of diseases and pests. Prior to ANOVA, assessments ensured the normal distribution and homogeneity of variance across datasets. Where necessary, raw data were transformed using natural logarithms (ln) to conform to assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality. The means were compared by the Duncan’ s test. Declarations Acknowledgments We thank Dr Xiaoyun Zhang, Professor Chunhe Jiang, and Mr Wenhua Li for their assistance during the experiment. Funding National Natural Science Foundation of China (32160492 and 31401336). Research Foundation for Scientific Scholars of Moutai Institute (mygccrc [2022] 021 and [2022] 060). Author contributions Kaixian Wu conceived the idea of this manuscript. Kaixian Wu, Bozhi Wu and Hongli Yang designed the experiment. Kaixian Wu, Shiyong Zhou, and Hongli Yang collected data. Hongli Yang and Guang Zeng analysed the data. Kaixian Wu authored the original draft, while Hongli Yang and Guang Zeng contributed to the critical review and editing of the manuscript. All authors commented on the manuscript. Competing interests Authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability All data are available in the main text or the supplementary materials. References C. Oerke, Crop losses to pests. J . Ag . r Sci . 144 , 31-34 (2006). K. Ramesh, et al ., Weed problems, ecology, and management options in conservation agriculture: Issues and perspectives. Adv . Agron . 131 , 251 (2015). S. J. Butler, J. A. Vickery, K. Norris, Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315 , 381-384 (2007). S. Kaur et al. , Current status of herbicide-resistant weeds and their management in the rice-wheat cropping system of South Asia. Adv . Agron . 172 , 307-354 (2022). J. Storkey, A. Mead, J. Addy, A. J. MacDonald, Agricultural intensification and climate change have increased the threat from weeds. Global Change Biol . 27 , 2416-2425 (2021). A. Varanasi, P. V. V. Prasad, M. Jugulam, Impact of climate change factors on weeds and herbicide efficacy. Adv . Agron . 135 , 107-146 (2016). L. P. Gianessi, The increasing importance of herbicides in worldwide crop production. Pest Manag . Sci . 69 , 1099-1105 (2014). R. Unsworth, L. C. Cullen-Unsworth, B. Jones, R. J. Lilley, The planetary role of seagrass conservation. Science 377 , 609-613 (2022). C. Stromberg, A. C. Staver, The history and challenge of grassy biomes. Science 377 , 592-593 (2022). G. Martin et al. , Role of ley pastures in tomorrow’s cropping systems. A review. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 40 , 17 (2020). E. P. P. M. Tommaso Tadiello, Growth, weed control, and nitrogen uptake of winter-killed cover crops, and their effects on maize in conservation agriculture. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 42 , 18(2022). D. P. Horvath, S. A. Clay, C. J. Swanton, J. V. Anderson, W. S. Chao, Weed-induced crop yield loss: A new paradigm and new challenges. Trends Plant Sci . 28 , 567-582 (2023). P. D. KA Garrett, When does the spatial pattern of weeds matter? Predictions from neighborhood models. Ecol . Appl . 8 , 1250-1259 (1998). D. R. Pike, E. W. Stoller, L. M. Wax, Modeling soybean growth and canopy apportionment in weed-soybean ( Glycine max ) competition. Weed Sci . 38 , 522-527 (1990). A. M. Verdú, M. T. Mas, Mulching as an alternative technique for weed management in mandarin orchard tree rows. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 27 , 367-375 (2007). A. Paušič, S. Tojnko, M. Lešnik, Permanent, undisturbed, in-row living mulch: A realistic option to replace glyphosate-dominated chemical weed control in intensive pear orchards. Agr . Ecosyst . Environ . 318 , 107502 (2021). A. R. C. A. A Scavo, Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping enhances soil fertility and weed seedbank dynamics in a Mediterranean apricot orchard. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 41 , 6 (2021). A. Tu et al. , Long-term effects of living grass mulching on soil and water conservation and fruit yield of citrus orchard in south China. Agr . Water Manage . 252 , 106897 (2021). T. Nakamoto, M. Tsukamoto, Abundance and activity of soil organisms in fields of maize grown with a white clover living mulch. Agr . Ecosyst . Environ . 115 , 34-42 (2006). M. Carof, S. D. Tourdonnet, P. Saulas, D. L. Floch, J. Roger-Estrade, Undersowing wheat with different living mulches in a no-till system. II. Competition for light and nitrogen. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 27 , 357-365 (2007). H. Hauggaardnielsen, A. Johansen, M. S. Carter, P. Ambus, E. S. Jensen, Annual maize and perennial grass-clover strip cropping for increased resource use efficiency and productivity using organic farming practice as a model. Eur . J Agron . 47 , 55-64 (2013). A. R. Kniss, Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use. Nat . Commun . 8 , 14865 (2017). Z. Ye, F. Wu, D. A. Hennessy, environmental and economic concerns surrounding restrictions on glyphosate use in corn. Proc . Natl . Acad . Sci . USA 118 , 18 (2021). S. Fogliatto, A. Ferrero, F. Vidotto, Current and future scenarios of glyphosate use in Europe: Are there alternatives? Adv . Agron . 163 , 219-278 (2020). W. J. WW Donald, Interference effects of weed-infested bands in or between crop rows on field corn ( Zea mays ) yield. Weed Technol . 17 , 755-763 (2003). F. Jacquet et al. , Pesticide-free agriculture as a new paradigm for research. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 42 , 1 (2022). Y. Chae, Y. An, Current research trends on plastic pollution and ecological impacts on the soil ecosystem: A review. Environ . Pollut . 240 , 387-395 (2018). T. Abbas, Z. A. Zahir, M. Naveed, R. J. Kremer, Limitations of existing weed control practices necessitate development of alternative techniques based on biological approaches. Adv . Agron . 147 , 239-280 (2018). L. Bastiaans, R. Paolini, D. T. Baumann, Focus on ecological weed management: what is hindering adoption? Weed Res . 48 , 481-491 (2010). L. N. Kolb, E. R. Gallandt, Weed management in organic cereals: Advances and opportunities. Organic Agriculture 2 , 23-42 (2012). S. Gruber, C. Pekrun, J. Möhring, W. Claupein, Long-term yield and weed response to conservation and stubble tillage in SW Germany. Soil Till . Res . 121 , 49-56 (2012). G. Wei, X. Kong, Y. Wang, Will joining cooperative promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19 , 16647 (2022). N. Weithmann et al. , Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic into the environment. Sci . Adv . 4 , eaap8060 (2018). S. Reardon, Manure fertilizer increases antibiotic resistance. Nature , 16081 (2014). S. Ma et al. , Variations and determinants of carbon content in plants: A global synthesis. Biogeosciences 15 , 693-702 (2018). M. Triolet et al. , Weeds harbor an impressive diversity of fungi, which offers possibilities for biocontrol. Appl . Environ . Microb . 88 , e217721 (2022). H. O. A. P. Pauline dentika, weeds as pathogen hosts and disease risk for crops in the wake of a reduced use of herbicides: Evidence from Yam ( Dioscorea alata ) fields and Colletotrichum pathogens in the tropics. J . Fungi 7 , 283 (2022). P. Bàrberi, Ecological weed management in Sub-Saharan Africa: prospects and implications on other agroecosystem services. Adv . Agron . 156 , 219-264 (2019). S. Petit, A. Boursault, M. Guilloux, N. Munier-Jolain, X. Reboud, Weeds in agricultural landscapes. A review. Agron . Sustain . Dev . 31 , 309-317 (2011). Additional Declarations There is NO Competing Interest. Supplementary Files SupplementaryinformationPDF.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5317116","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":372293619,"identity":"fc996bbf-f9a5-4b19-a395-1cdbca1240f0","order_by":0,"name":"Kaixian Wu","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1308-9748","institution":"Department of Resources and Environment, Moutai Institute, P.O. 564507, Renhuai, Guizhou Province, PR China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kaixian","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""},{"id":372293620,"identity":"efeebfed-8cbb-413f-8b76-50807762a9bd","order_by":1,"name":"Shiyong Zhou","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Faculty of Agronomy and Biotechnology, Yunnan Agricultural University, P.O. 650201, Kunming, Yunnan Province, PR China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shiyong","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhou","suffix":""},{"id":372293621,"identity":"ddbfab8b-f2d4-46d7-8011-0070f676946a","order_by":2,"name":"Guang Zeng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Resources and Environment, Moutai Institute, P.O. 564507, Renhuai, Guizhou Province, PR China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guang","middleName":"","lastName":"Zeng","suffix":""},{"id":372293618,"identity":"6f9b063a-6d08-4cba-9a0b-dc07dcc806af","order_by":3,"name":"Hongli Yang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Department of Resources and Environment, Moutai Institute, P.O. 564507, Renhuai, Guizhou Province, PR China","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hongli","middleName":"","lastName":"Yang","suffix":""},{"id":372293622,"identity":"92b14735-b329-4fd3-93ed-dafa010d2720","order_by":4,"name":"Bozhi Wu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Faculty of Agronomy and Biotechnology, Yunnan Agricultural University, P.O. 650201, Kunming, Yunnan Province, PR China","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bozhi","middleName":"","lastName":"Wu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-10-23 08:30:41","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5317116/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5317116/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":68233270,"identity":"044f1969-a483-46b5-a98d-ab95466523c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-05 06:28:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1779291,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerformance of maize production in ITUSW\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e(Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds\u003c/strong\u003e). \u003cstrong\u003e(A)\u003c/strong\u003e Maintaining maize yield by ITUSW versus conventional approaches: CW (Chemical Weeding), MFW (Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding), CWSM (Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching), and MHW (Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing), and indistinguishable growth under ITUSW versus CW, showcasing in \u003cstrong\u003e(B) \u003c/strong\u003eadjacent plot comparisons and \u003cstrong\u003e(C)\u003c/strong\u003e individual row assessments within isolated plots. Error bars denote the standard deviation. The asterisks indicate significant differences at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05 in each year.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5317116/v1/3225484ef5b51be48f88188d.png"},{"id":68233275,"identity":"4f7b244f-8b42-499c-a734-d4ffa4b659ac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-05 06:28:44","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":4659870,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds) control the inra-row weeds, but obtained high inter-row weed production versus conventional approaches. \u003c/strong\u003eThe conventional approaches are CW (Chemical Weeding), MFW (Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding), CWSM (Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching), and MHW (Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing). \u003cstrong\u003e(A) \u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e (B) \u003c/strong\u003eWeed biomass at above- and below-ground, respectively. \u003cstrong\u003e(C-F)\u003c/strong\u003e Diagrams illustrate weeds growth in ITUSW: \u003cstrong\u003e(C)\u003c/strong\u003e weed development between rows; \u003cstrong\u003e(D) \u003c/strong\u003eweed infestation within rows; \u003cstrong\u003e(E)\u003c/strong\u003e weed status in both intra- and inter-rows at the mowing stage; \u003cstrong\u003e(F)\u003c/strong\u003e weed condition post-mowing in both row scenarios. Values (means ± S.D.) among treatments with same letters are not significant difference at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05. Bars sharing the same letters indicate no statistically significant difference at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5317116/v1/35900ebeb5a708231829d323.png"},{"id":68233464,"identity":"a165b5b0-c672-4bd5-b821-ef0dd68686a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-05 06:36:44","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":318653,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePartitioned root distribution between weeds and maize, and the improved soil with looser particle within row under ITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5317116/v1/b495d73f93a97891506af7fb.png"},{"id":68233271,"identity":"63daaa50-3b0c-4d43-a130-017db3149163","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-05 06:28:44","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":3932498,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInfluence of weed control and residue mulching on maize and weeds production\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e(A) \u003c/strong\u003eMaize yield and growth performance. \u003cstrong\u003e(B)\u003c/strong\u003e Weed biomass at above-ground and below-ground within row, between rows and overall average. \u003cstrong\u003e(C-G) \u003c/strong\u003ePhotos depicted weed control and straw disposal within and between maize rows employing ITUSW, with insights into weed development across varied microsites. \u003cstrong\u003e(C) \u003c/strong\u003eNatural weed progression followed by straw retention on rows. \u003cstrong\u003e(D) \u003c/strong\u003eInter-row weeds are mowed and removed away from field. \u003cstrong\u003e(E)\u003c/strong\u003e Iner-row weeds are controlled by pesticide. \u003cstrong\u003e(F) \u003c/strong\u003eIntra-row weed control via chemical application. \u003cstrong\u003e(G)\u003c/strong\u003e Comprehensive chemical control targeting weeds in both inter- and intra-row zones. Treatments include ITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds); EWWR (Exterminate Weed within Row with Herbicides), EWBR (Exterminate Weed Between Rows with Herbicides), EAW (Exterminate all Weed with Herbicides), RWB (Removing Weed Residue Covering Above-Ground without Herbicides). Error bars denote the standard deviation across the years 2019 to 2023 for each treatment. Bars sharing the same letters indicate no statistically significant difference at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5317116/v1/297c35b9211ae1009a550f5a.png"},{"id":68394467,"identity":"86c712bc-2f57-4b06-9f93-3a21402e488d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-06 21:09:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":17402733,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5317116/v1/39b18650-e0af-455d-a02d-7811d8643378.pdf"},{"id":68233273,"identity":"39e43352-c601-4ab9-bcf4-83b1aa97fabf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-11-05 06:28:44","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":5901307,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryinformationPDF.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5317116/v1/da04d0c587cd8715a77e78fe.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"There is \u003cb\u003eNO\u003c/b\u003e Competing Interest.","formattedTitle":"New technology to utilise and suppress weeds for sustainable maize production","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThroughout agricultural history, weeds have posed a substantial impediment to crop productivity, with yield reductions potentially reaching 30%, surpassing losses attributed to pests and diseases \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In response, humans have aggressively combatted weeds, devising a range of strategies including chemical interventions, physical and biological controls, as well as cultural practices for their eradication. Nevertheless, weeds persist, and the yield loss challenge endures. The relentless war on weeds has inadvertently unleashed a gamut of environmental concerns, notably including biodiversity loss\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, the emergence of invasive and herbicide-resistant weed populations \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, and is further exacerbated by intensifying agricultural practices and global environmental transformations\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e as well as rapid urbanisation and workforce deficiencies in developing nations \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. While weeds are acknowledged as a repository of biological wealth, and their broad distribution and copious biomass hold promise for applications such as feed, soil enrichment, herbal remedies, and as a nectar source for pollinators, realising their potential without compromising crop productivity remains an elusive aspiration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeeds, as herbaceous plants, potentially influence ecosystem structure and function by functioning as primary producers. The documented significance of herbaceous plants in forest ecosystems and marine habitats underscores their ecological importance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, while in grassland ecosystems, these plants\u0026rsquo; foundational role is paramount for upholding ecological integrity, and is garnering increasing recognition\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nonetheless, herbaceous plants, commonly designated as weeds in agricultural contexts, frequently face removal, and the division between grassland and agricultural land usage persists. Although integrated crop-livestock systems occasionally incorporate grass phases\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, practices such as co-cultivation of crops with herbaceous species or weed retention alongside crops, and crop cultivation on native grasslands, remain infrequent observations. This scarcity of integration is largely attributed to the entrenched view of weeds competitively consuming vital resources like nutrients, water, and sunlight, alongside their allelopathic capacity to impede crop development\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Empirical studies have highlighted a spatial effect of weed-crop competition\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, implying potential for resource exploitation in areas where competitive pressure from weeds is negligible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe application of living mulches in orchards stands as a comparable innovation in weed exploitation strategies, effectively suppressing suppressing weed proliferation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, fostering soil health and moisture retention, and boosting fruit yield\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Nevertheless, distinct from orchard settings, the dissimilarities in crop composition, planting configurations, and soil management protocols in arable landscapes pose unique challenges to weed utilisation. Specifically, heightened biological resemblance between crops and weeds in farmland exacerbates competitive pressures; the confined row spacing hampers mechanized weed control measures. Despite documented instances of intercropping employing living mulches, particularly legumes, amidst crop rows\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, prevailing research practices necessitate manual establishment of cover crops. This approach entails elevated costs and underutilises weeds\u0026rsquo; potential for soil enrichment, biodiversity enhancement, carbon sequestration, and self-suppression of weed populations. Excessive implementation of intercropped cover crops or grass strips may also infringe upon cropping zones, thereby restricting land availability\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Consequently, the domain of prospective methodologies and technological advancements aimed at leveraging weeds as a valuable asset within agricultural ecosystems stands as a formidable frontier, laden with challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere we provided an Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (ITUSW), which integrates crop configuration, soil tillage, mechanical weeding and straw utilisation, and comprises five principal steps. In brief, maize is planted in ultra-wide rows (100 cm apart) with two plants per hill on strip-tillage beds. Inter-row weeds are allowed to grow naturally. These weeds are mowed during maize\u0026rsquo;s seedling, tillering, and flowering stages. The cut material, combined with the previous year\u0026rsquo;s maize stover laid on the inter-rows, is then used as a mulch over the maize rows, eventually returning to the soil through the practice of strip-tillage.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eNew Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo gauge the efficacy of the innovative technology, we executed an experiment comparing it with prevalent contemporary methods. During a five-year experimental span (Experiment 1), our findings disclosed that yield under ITUSW regime did not statistically differ from those achieved by Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding (MFW), Chemical Weeding (CW), Chemical Weeding plus Straw Return (CWSR), and Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing (MHW), yet they significantly surpassed those of Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching (CWSM). The unaffected maize yield under ITUSW is corroborated by sustained growth performance (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB-C; Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC-F; Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e; Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). These outcomes demonstrate that ITUSW maintains maize productivity on par with conventional practices, and in some instances, offers superior performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn comparison to conventional weed control practices, ITUSW not only suppressed weed growth intra-row but also stimulated substantial biomass increments inter-row (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). Above-ground intra-row weed biomass under ITUSW was notably reduced compared to MFW, resembling levels observed in other treatments. Conversely, inter-row weed biomass experienced substantial elevations to 448 g/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e through maize growth season, specifically by 9.89-, 5.14-, 4.36-, and 3.51-fold in contrast to SWSM, CW, MHW, and MFW, respectively. By the study\u0026rsquo;s fifth year, a substantial increase in weed root biomass was observed both within the crop rows managed under ITUSW and in the inter-row spaces. The apex of this increase, reaching up to 85.6 times, was documented at inter-row. The sustained biomass under natural growth conditions paves the way for the valorization of weeds as a valuable resource. For instance, ITUSW notably reduces soil penetration resistance, while enhancing fertility through increased levels of soil organic matter, available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, outperforming all other methods except for phosphorus and potassium in CWSM, and for soil penetration resistance and bulk density in MFW and CWSM (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImprovement of soil quality within the crop row under ITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds) after five years of experimentation: Comparison with conventional methods based on chemical properties, penetration resistance (0\u0026ndash;30 cm soil depth), and bulk density\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSOM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(g/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvailable N\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvailable P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvailable K\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil penetration resistance (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBulk density (g/cm\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;10 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;20 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;30 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;10 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u0026ndash;20 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u0026ndash;30 cm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMFW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.3c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e115\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.6bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e167\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;48bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.03\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.29c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.62\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.51d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.44a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.23\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.29\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCWSM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.3b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.2ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e189\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.59a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.46a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.47\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.50a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.11\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04abc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eITUSW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.3a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.8a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e203\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.26c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.37e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.94\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.35c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.06\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.24\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.6c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12d\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.4bc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e152\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.35b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.77\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.49c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.43b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMHW\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.1c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e107\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14cd\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.1c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28c\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.27b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.89\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.43b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.36\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.46ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.12\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.25\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08a\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.32\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06ab\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e-values\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreatments (T)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.877\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.109\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.851\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.947\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103.927\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.472\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.791\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.185\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.625\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.882\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear (Y)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.313\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.265\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.174\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT\u0026times;Y\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.091\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.604\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.639\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-------\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis table presents the enhancement of soil quality achieved through ITUSW, in comparison to conventional weed control practices, namely CW (Chemical Weeding), MFW (Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding), CWSM (Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching), and MHW (Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing). SOM: Soil Organic Matter; * significant at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05. Values (means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;S.D.) in a column sharing the same letter (means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;S.D.) do not differ significantly at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDesign of the innovative technology (ITUSW)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDistance between weed and maize\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe foundational premise of our novel technology is rooted in the notion that weed competition predominantly occurs in proximity to the crop\u0026rsquo;s root zone, whereas beyond this immediate vicinity, their impact may either be negligible or potentially beneficial. To empirically substantiate this hypothesis, we embarked on a field trial (Experiment 2). We found that maize yields peaking at wider spacings up to 35 cm before plateauing. Yield reductions of 25\u0026ndash;43% due to intense weed competition were concentrated within a 15 cm interval, notably at 0\u0026ndash;5 cm, whereas spacings over 25 cm showed negligible yield variation (Fig. S6A). This pattern of yield response to weed competition mirrors that observed in biomass production (Fig. S6B-E). Weed root mass diminished significantly as spacing widened, exhibiting no change between 0 cm and 5 cm, but exceeding values at 10\u0026ndash;40 cm, except between 30 cm and 40 cm. Inversely, maize root biomass rose significantly with increasing spacing, with 0\u0026ndash;10 cm spacings yielding significantly less biomass compared to 15\u0026ndash;40 cm intervals (Fig. S7; Table S3). These insights propose that optimizing maize yield involves strategic weed management within 0\u0026ndash;25 cm and potentially harnessing weed benefits in the beyond 25 cm range.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCrop layout\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe innovation in our technology\u0026rsquo;s design centres on targeted weed management immediately adjacent to or within maize rows, while harnessing the potential of weeds growing between rows. To achieve this, initial measures broadened row spacing to 100 cm, which facilitate greater inter-row weed development, ease mechanical weeding operations, and open avenues for exploiting weed resources. This broader spacing also concentrate fertiliser application around clustered maize plants, optimising nutrient utilisation. To address the potential increase in intraspecific competition and its consequent yield reduction in wider row configurations, we conducted a field experiment with varied crop layouts (Experiment 3). Relative to narrow row configurations, wide row significantly depressed maize yield and growth performance. But dual plants per hole, under wide row layout, increased yield and growth performance (Table. S4). This finding suggests the dual plants per hole strategy mitigates the adverse effects of wide row arrangements. Moreover, without weed control, inter-row weed biomass in wide rows configuration was significantly higher than in narrow rows, indicating that expanding the row spacing promote weed production.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePrecision managements for intra- and inter row weeds\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo fully utilise the benefits of weeds at inter-row spaces while effectively controlling those within the intra-row areas, distinct management strategies are required. Inter-row weed growth is facilitated by adopting no-tillage practices and mild control with mowing, concurrently suppressing intra-row weeds and enhancing maize growth through targeted tillage approach. Inter-row weed biomass and maize straw were strategically utilised as mulch on the soil surface within rows, further suppressing intra-row weeds and promoting a self-inhibiting effect on weed growth. In subsequent seasons, the weed residues and maize straw are reincorporated into the soil within rows through tillage practices. To elucidate the effects of weed occurrence and straw coverage at distinct sites within the ITUSW methodology, field experiments were undertaken (Experiment 4). Based on the ITUSW protocol, herbicide-based inter-row weed elimination (CW-combined, CW-inter), not the intra-row herbicidal weed control (CW-intra) led to significant decreases in yield and growth performance, implying a beneficial effect of inter-row weeds and mulch on maize growth (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA, C-G; Table S5). Additionally, the removal of weed straw mulch from both intra-row and inter-row zones (RSM) significantly intensified yield suppression and growth reduction, suggesting that the application of weed straw cover within crop rows either promotes maize growth or that its overall benefits outweigh the competitive inhibition imposed by intra-row weeds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also found that weed residue coverage efficiently curbs weed expansion within crop rows (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB, C-G). Under ITUSW, intra-row weed shoot biomass was less than RSM and CW-inter, greater than CW-combined, and matched CW-intra statistically. Subsurface, root biomass under ITUSW exceeded CW-intra within rows, though was inferior to CW-inter and CW-combined, with no significant distinction from CW-combined. Besides, preserving inter-row weeds and their straw mulch improve soil quality. At 10\u0026ndash;30 cm depth in intra-row zone, ITUSW shows lower soil penetration resistance, and herbicide use significantly elevates bulk density versus no treatment (Table S6). Regarding chemical properties for intra-row soil, ITUSW also showed significantly higher organic matter, available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content than CW-inter, CW-combined, and RSM, without significant difference from CW-intra (Table. S7). However, weed and its residues covering have an inconsistent effect on pest and disease (Table. S8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eSuitability for winter land use\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo assess the compatibility of ITUSW with winter land use, a field study was executed, incorporating wheat planting and tillage practices under the ITUSW regime (Experiment 5). Fig. S8, Table S9-10 illustrate ITUSW Coupled with Conventional Winter Tillage Preceding Wheat Sowing (ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT) and ITUSW Paired with Winter Strip Tillage before Wheat Planting (ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST), compared to Chemical Weeding plus Wheat Planting (CWW), have no significant impact on maize yield. Simultaneously, both ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT and ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST maintain wheat yield, with ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT demonstrating a significant yield increase. So no statistically significant difference was observed in the aggregate yield of maize and wheat across ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST, ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT, and CWW. For weed production, shoot weed biomass within crop rows remained unaffected by either winter land use strategies or weed management practices. Notably, inter-row weed biomass was higher in ITUSW and ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST than in ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT. Furthermore, ITUSW demonstrated significantly elevated weed root biomass in the inter-row zone, outperforming CW, CWW, and ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT. These results suggest that integrating winter wheat in ITUSW systems preserves overall crop yield, while diminishing weed proliferation. Collectively, ITUSW is compatible with winter cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrate that ITUSW, compared to conventional global weed control practices, diminishes or eradicates the reliance on herbicides and agricultural films, concurrently maintaining maize yields. Notably, it markedly boosts production compared to no-tillage systems reliant on herbicides (CWSM), a conservation agriculture practice. Excessive use of herbicides and agricultural films, which compromise biodiversity, degrade soil health, and heighten food safety concerns, significantly hinder sustainable development\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This situation is further exacerbated by an alarming global escalation in herbicide consumption\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Considering maize\u0026rsquo;s status as one of the globe\u0026rsquo;s most extensively cultivated crops, this innovation holds vast promise for progressing sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, our findings may spur analogous technological advancements in other crops sharing maize\u0026rsquo;s biological characteristics, such as sugarcane and sorghum, facilitating effective weed management across fields.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interventions synergistically integrate multiple weed suppression tactics sans chemicals: mechanical control, tillage, mulching, and enhancing crop competitive strength. However, in simpler terms, the underlying principle of our technology rests on the insight that weed-crop competition is variable, largely influenced by the distance between weeds and crops. Studies have shown that intra-row weeds in maize cause lesser yield reduction compared to inter-row weeds\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. But earlier investigations did not ascertain the critical distance at which weed competition with crops begins, given row spacing not exceeding 80 cm, a scenario in which maize gains a competitive advantage via shading. Our study, employing 200 cm row spacing with intervals between weeds and maize plants ranging from 0 cm to 100 cm, revealed that optimizing maize yield involves strategic weed management within 0\u0026ndash;25 cm and potentially harnessing weed benefits in the beyond 25 cm range. This discovery has the potential to transform our views and comprehension of weed ecology, leading to a strategic shift in weed management. A pivotal insight suggests focusing weed control adjacent to crop rows, as opposed to blanket coverage across the field.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePresently, diverse non-chemical approaches are in use, such as surface coverage, soil tillage, mechanical weeding, seed bank manipulation, fostering crop competitiveness\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, However, these practices face challenges in applications. For instance, plastic mulching introduces environmental risks associated with plastic debris\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Traditional soil cultivation techniques posing a risk of inducing soil erosion. Mechanical mowing within narrow crop rows proves impracticable, risking crop injury\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These limitations curtail the broad-scale uptake of individual non-chemical methods\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Remarkably, ITUSW integrates diverse non-chemical weed control methodologies, addressing their inherent constraints, to develop an integrated weed management strategy that is both pragmatic and influential. By utilising strip-tillage, this innovative technique alleviates soil erosion linked with conventional tillage methods and substitutes plastic mulching with covers composed of weed and crop residues, thereby diminishing plastic pollution. Contrary to traditional mechanical weeding practices, ITUSW enhances the ease of mechanical operations and facilitates efficient inter-row weed management, primarily due to its wide row spacing and focus on mowing inter-row weeds. Moreover, the retention of intact branch and leaf structures of weed plants in ITUSW contrasts with the overly dispersed and fine debris characteristic of traditional mechanical weeding. This ensures precise intra-row coverage, thereby fully leveraging the mulch\u0026rsquo;s benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe novel technology integrates not only a suite of weed management strategies but also pivotal sustainable agricultural practices embraced globally, encompassing conservation agriculture, crop straw recycling, and agricultural biodiversity exploitation. Whether focusing on weed control or other sustainability measures, this technology remedies several limitations inherent in standalone approaches. Firstly, conservation agriculture, centred on minimal tillage and surface mulching, leans heavily on herbicides for weed suppression\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e; conversely, our technology employs strip tillage paired with a surface cover composed of accumulated thick straw from weeds and maize, efficaciously suppressing weed proliferation. Secondly, usual straw return practices often entail burying fresh straw, which can provoke severe pest infestations, high soil nutrient depletion, and challenges in straw decomposition. Conversely, our method situates straw atop the soil, enabling it to desiccate naturally over time, followed by its reincorporation into the soil in the following season, thus bypassing common straw return obstacles and optimising straw use efficiency. Finally, conventional strategies for augmenting farmland biodiversity, such as intercropping, crop rotation, and mixed cropping, generally yield modest species diversification, typically numbering between three and five species. In contrast, our technology transcends these limitations, introducing more than five unique species, as observed in field (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC), thereby approximating natural biodiversity levels and fostering comprehensive ecological diversity across farmland. Consequently, our technology stands as a unique and groundbreaking innovation, transcending a mere aggregation of prevailing practices. It holds the potential to accelerate the implementation of contemporary sustainable agriculture methodologies, thereby contributing significantly to the global advancement of sustainable agricultural development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn practice, the novel technology exhibit substantial potential, manifesting across various domains. Firstly, weeds represent an economical organic matter reservoir, alleviating pressures from the scarcity of organic fertilisers. Globally, agricultural soils have experienced a decline in organic content, partly due to the limited availability of cost-efficient organic fertiliser options\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast to chemical fertilisers, organic varieties face challenges primarily due to their inconvenient for application and increased transportation costs. The technology we introduce, however, enables on-site production, thereby overcoming these issues. Furthermore, utilising weeds as an organic fertiliser source avoids the potential safety concerns linked to contaminants, such as antibiotics, heavy metals, and microplastics, commonly encountered in conventionally derived fertilisers\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Secondly, agricultural soils\u0026rsquo; role as major emitters of greenhouse gases globally is significant. New technology shows an annual increase of 2.25 tonnes of weed biomass per hectare over traditional methods, equivalent to sequestering 0.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare yearly\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, revealing substantial mitigation potential. Finally, soil erosion in farmland represents a pressing threat to sustainable agriculture. Notably, herbaceous plant cover serves as a robust barrier to erosion, significantly mitigating its effects\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Our technology introduces an advanced grass strip intercropping system, characterized by denser strips and the implementation of no-till practices, thereby enhancing ground cover in cropped areas and proving pivotal in the fight against soil erosion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonetheless, several aspects warrant consideration for the broad-scale deployment of this novel technology. Chief among them, the potential increase in management costs and energy usage may raise financial concerns among growers. Consequently, the design of efficient operational tools becomes imperative. We argue that the advent of agricultural machinery and digital solutions, integrating weed management and soil coverage, is pivotal to render this innovation economically feasible. Importantly, the technology, while comprehensive and adaptable, avoids unnecessary complexity. Moreover, it introduces potential cost reductions, such as diminished tillage needs and lowered fertilizer and herbicide inputs, contrasting traditional practices. Secondly, field weeds can act as reservoirs for plant pathogens\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, potentially heightening crop health risks\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Conversely, emerging evidence suggests that diverse weed populations can promote biodiversity, mitigating disease pressures\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Our study did not document a marked rise in maize pest and disease incidence linked to the technology (Fig. S5); however, further studies are needed to clarify the circumstances under which weed presence might exacerbate such issues. Furthermore, the integration of this technology with prevailing agricultural practices, such as fertilization, cultivar selection, soil improvement, and irrigation management, should be vigorously pursued to achieve the goal of significantly enhancing yields, reducing costs, and optimizing resource utilization.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental site\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eField experiments were carried out between 2017 and 2023 at the Daheqiao Agricultural Experiment Station of Yunnan Agricultural University, situated in Xundian, Yunnan Province, southwest China (103\u0026deg;16\u0026prime;41\u0026prime;\u0026prime;E, 25\u0026deg;31\u0026prime;07\u0026prime;N). Located at an elevation of 1860 metres above sea level, this site experiences a mean annual temperature of 14.4\u0026deg;C and receives a mean annual precipitation of 906.5 mm, primarily concentrated from May through September (Fig.\u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). The soil type, as classified by the Chinese Soil Taxonomy, is a silty clay loam.The soil layer at a depth of 0\u0026ndash;20 cm exhibited a pH of 7.92, with total nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) contents amounting to 1.09 g/kg, 0.82 g/kg, and 19.07 g/kg, respectively. The available forms of N, P, and K measured were 90.10 mg/kg, 10.74 mg/kg, and 143.66 mg/kg, respectively. The soil organic matter content was determined to be 22.97 g/kg.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntegrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (Experiment 1)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eWe have developed an Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (ITUSW), which integrates approaches to crop configuration, soil tillage, weed control, and straw utilisation. The technology comprises five principal steps, partly illustrated in Fig. S2. Initially, maize is planted with an augmented row spacing of 100 cm, adopting a dual plants configuration per planting hole with 2\u0026ndash;5 cm distance. After harvest, maize straw is reduced to segments of 3\u0026ndash;4 cm and consistently dispersed over the soil surface amidst the rows. In the second stage, preceding the next maize planting season, strip tillage is conducted along the pre-established crop rows using a rotary tiller. The operation entails tilling to a width of 40 cm and a depth of 16\u0026ndash;18 cm, while concurrently maintaining a 60 cm no-till strip between rows. The third step sees the reseeding of maize in accordance with the widened-row, dual plants scheme. Maize straw is then relocated from inter-row spaces to cover the 40 cm tilled strip alongside each row during the V5 growth stage of maize, a process facilitated by raking. In the third stage, maize for the subsequent season is resown employing a widened-row, dual plants configuration. Upon reaching the V5 growth stage, preceding maize straw is transferred from inter-row spaces to envelop the 40 cm-wide tilled strips adjacent to each row, a process assisted by raking. During the fourth phase, weeds between the rows are trimmed at the maize\u0026rsquo;s V4-5, V7-8, and V17-R1 growth stages, leaving residual stems at 3 cm tall. The severed weed straw is manually laid onto the tilled 40 cm zone. In the course of the next year\u0026rsquo;s planting and primary tillage procedures, the weeds and maize straw blanketing the tilled strips are assimilated into the soil of the planting band. Throughout the maize growth cycle, weed emergence between rows is permitted without enforcing additional weed control measures.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTo gauge the efficacy of the innovative technology, we executed an experiment comparing it with prevalent contemporary methods. Four control groups were established: Chemical Weeding (CW), Plastic Film Mulching for Weeding (MFW), Chemical Weeding Combined with Straw Mulching (CWSM), and Mechanical Weeding by Hand Hoeing (MHW). Under CW, atrazine at 1.1 kg/ha was administered 10\u0026ndash;15 days post-maize seedling emergence. For MFW, a 2-metre-wide film of designated thickness was spread atop planting rows at sowing, with edges sealed by soil and seedling holes punched post-emergence. MHW involved hand hoeing to remove weeds at growth stages V4-5 and V14-15. In CWSM, the soil remained untilled, topped with maize straw; herbicide application mirrored CW procedures. Acknowledging straw incorporation as a unique aspect of the integrated technology, an extra arm of Chemical Weeding plus Straw Return (CWSR) was introduced to discern if the observed ITUSW impacts were attributable to straw incorporation. Each plot, measuring 9.5 metres by 4.0 metres, was triplicated, with a fully randomised layout. The trial extended over a five-year timeframe, from 2019 through 2023.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDistance effects between maize and weeds on plant competition (Experiment 2)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTo examine the impact of varying weed-to-maize plant distances on competitive interactions, a field study was conducted during 2017\u0026ndash;2018 (Fig. S3). Maize was sown with rows spaced at 200 cm apart and intra-row spacing of 28 cm, adopting a double-planting scheme per hole. The intervals between weeds and maize plants were systematically varied, ranging from 0 cm to 100 cm, specifically at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 80, and 100 cm. Given the individual weed dimensions, it was postulated that their influential spatial extent primarily encompasses distances up to 60 cm; hence, within this critical zone, spacing increments of 5 cm were employed, transitioning to 20 cm increments beyond 60 cm. Throughout each distance treatment, manual weed control was executed every fortnight from maize emergence until flowering. The experimental design comprised 15 distinct treatments, each replicated thrice across 4 m by 6 m plots, with tillage and general field maintenance adhering to standard agricultural protocols.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffects of crop layout on maize yield and weed production (Experiment 3)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDuring 2017\u0026ndash;2018, a field experiment was undertaken to elucidate the effect of planting configurations on maize yield, considering two variables: row spacing (100 cm wide versus 60 cm narrow) and plants per hole (singular or dual plants). This setup yielded four distinct treatments, each replicated thrice. The experimental plots, measuring 4 m by 9 m, adhered to a complete randomisation design. Weed control conformed to production guidelines via herbicidal applications. Concurrently, to determine whether expanded row spacing encourages inter-row weed production, an auxiliary field experiment concentrated on contrasting row spacings of 100 cm and 60 cm, purposely forgoing weed control measures. In order to emulate standard growth environments for maize, manual weeding was confined to a 10 cm band around each plant during the early growth phase. These tests were also triplicated, employing 4 m by 6 m plot sizes and adopting a thorough randomised design.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSpatial distribution and straw coverage effects of weeds (Experiment 4)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTo elucidate the effects of weed occurrence and straw coverage at distinct sites within the ITUSW methodology, field experiments were undertaken from 2019 to 2023. With ITUSW serving as the control, chemical weeding were applied to intra-row locales (CW-intra), inter-row zones (CW-inter), and in a combined intra-/inter-row scenario (CW-combined), in accordance with the ITUSW\u0026rsquo;s protocol (\u003c/span\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC-G\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e). Additionally, to gauge the independent contribution of straw mulch on planting zone, we added a treatment that maintain the weeds without the use of herbicides but remove straw mulch (RSM). Five distinct treatments were employed, each replicated thrice, across 4m x 9m plots, arranged in a comprehensive randomised design. To accurately direct herbicides to weeds within a predefined area and mitigate their off-target effects on maize, plastic baffles were utilised to isolate maize plants from surrounding weeds during herbicide applications. All remaining experimental designs adhering to ITUSW principles and associated management practices conformed to those outlined in Experiment 1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSustainability of innovative technology for winter land use (Experiment 5)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eBetween 2020 and 2023, a field study was conducted to evaluate the compatibility of ITUSW (Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds) with winter cropping systems. Winter wheat was chosen as the model crop for this field-based inquiry. Three unique treatments, integrating wheat planting and tillage under ITUSW, were employed: ITUSW coupled with Conventional Winter Tillage Preceding Wheat Sowing (ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT); ITUSW paired with Winter Strip Tillage before Wheat Planting (ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST); and ITUSW without winter cropping. Two conventional regimes served as controls: Chemical Weeding plus Wheat Planting (CWW) and Chemical Weeding without Wheat Planting (CW). For winter tillage interventions (ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT and ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST)(Fig. S4), rotary tillage to a 18\u0026ndash;20 cm depth preceded wheat seeding, adhering to standard practices (20 cm row spacing, 100% land utilisation). Under the ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST regime, the winter strip tillage operation broadened the tilled zone from an initial 40 cm strip, bordering the maize planting row, to a width of 70 cm. Within this tilled band, wheat was sown at 20 cm intervals across four rows, attaining an 80% land utilisation rate. For both ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT and ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST, wheat straw substituting maize straw for soil coverage in the maize root zone. These five treatments were replicated thrice, with 4 m by 9 m plots arranged under a complete randomisation scheme.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCrop planting and field management\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn all experiments, the locally-adapted maize cultivar, Yunrui 668, prevalent in Southwest China, was utilised for field assessments. Planting occurred annually within the window of 25th April to 10th May. Wide row configurations featured 28 cm inter-plant spacing, hosting dual plants per hill, equating to 71,460 plants per hectare. Conversely, in narrow row arrangements (60 cm row spacing), a 23 cm inter-plant distance was adopted, reaching a density of 72,495 plants per hectare. Prior to sowing, the maize plot soil underwent rotary tillage to depths of 18\u0026ndash;20 cm (No-till furrow sowing at a depth of 10 cm for CWSM); Seed placement at 4 cm depth was manual, with three seeds sown per hill, later thinned to a single plant at V5 stage. Within the \"Sustainability of the integrated technology for winter land use\" experiment, the indigenous wheat variety Fengmai 27 was annually sown between 10th and 20th November. Planting parameters comprised rows spaced at 20 cm intervals, a sowing density of 225 kg/ha, a seeding depth of 4 cm. In Experiments 1, 4 and 5, controlled-release fertilizer (790 kg/ha, NPK ratio: 24:6:10) was incorporated into the soil at depths of 4\u0026ndash;5 cm during maize sowing (V4-5 stage) using a portable applicator, with no supplementary fertilization afterwards. In contrast, the Experiments 2 and 3 implemented staged nitrogen fertilization at sowing (72 kg/ha), jointing (48 kg/ha), and flowering (120 kg/ha), augmented by a singular application of phosphate (P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: 80 kg/ha) and potassium (K\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO: 25 kg/ha) at sowing. Remarkably, the individual plant fertilizer dose in the former experiment paralleled that in the latter. Wheat received nitrogen at sowing (120 kg/ha) and regrowth (80 kg/ha), together with primary applications of phosphate (P\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: 50 kg/ha) and potassium (K\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO: 20 kg/ha). All fertilizers were surface-applied. Throughout the study period, crops were provided with adequate weed, pest, and disease management, as well as artificial irrigation to prevent water stress. Uniform 1-meter plot distances and drainage ditches alongside pathways were consistently maintained across all experiments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSamples and measurements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMaize yield and growth parameters\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt maize maturation for all experiments, five rows (or all four rows in Experiment 2) of the wide-row configuration (1 m spacing) and eight rows of the uniform-spacing setup (0.6 m) were sampled. Ears were harvested, sun-dried until constant weight, and then threshed to determine grain mass. Concurrently, eight plants from the retained rows in each plot (within four rows for Experiment 2) were randomly selected and severed at the stalk base. Plant height and stem diameter at the midpoint of the second internode were measured with steel tapes and calipers, respectively. The plants were oven-dried at 60\u0026deg;C to constant weight for biomass calculations of both plant and grain. Plant biomass and harvest index (grain biomass to total plant biomass ratio) were derived from these measurements. In 2023, post-maize sampling in Experiments 1, 4 and 5, a root-soil composite (0.28 m \u0026times; 0.23 m in the row direction for wide and narrow rows, respectively, and 0.20 m deep perpendicular to the row) was excavated using an iron shovel. Roots were meticulously separated, rinsed clean with tap water, dried, and weighed at 60\u0026deg;C. Similarly, in 2018 following Experiment 2, a root-soil sample (0.28 m width in row direction, 0.60 m perpendicular length, and 0.20 m depth) was obtained, focusing on the 0\u0026ndash;40 cm spacing treatments. Root systems were processed as previously described for biomass quantification. The biomass of individual maize plants in wide rows with dual plants per hole was estimated accordingly. Regarding wheat in Experiment 5, eight rows were sampled, with grains threshed from ears and sun-dried for yield assessment. Additionally, three 0.5 m segments of rows (a single row in ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WCT and CWW; two adjacent rows bordering the no-till area in ITUSW\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;WST) were randomly picked. Whole plants were cut at soil level, sun-dried, and the combined seed and straw biomass was recorded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWeed production\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eIn Experiments 1, 4, and 5, weed biomass was quantified annually at seedling, flowering, and harvest stages using the quadrat method, with triplicate samplings (only at harvest stages for Experiment 3). All weeds enclosed within a wire-frame quadrat (0.25 m\u0026sup2;) were clipped at ground level and subsequently dried to a constant weight at 60\u0026deg;C to ascertain above-ground biomass. Sampling of inter-row weeds occurred at all three growth stages, whereas intra-row weeds were sampled exclusively at harvest. Quadrat dimensions varied: for intra-row, quadrat measured 1.25 m \u0026times; 0.2 m regardless of row width; for inter-row, quadrat was 0.5 m \u0026times; 0.5 m for wide rows and adjusted to 0.36 m \u0026times; 0.7 m for narrow rows, always positioned over 0.5 m from plot edges and at least 1 m apart. To compensate for sampled weeds, equivalent fresh biomass was trimmed alongside rows. In 2023, to gauge root biomass, nine random quadrat areas were sampled per plot, separately for intra- and inter-row weeds. Excavation to 20 cm depth, root extraction, washing, drying at 60\u0026deg;C, and weighing procedures were followed. During 2018\u0026rsquo;s Experiment 2, within treatments featuring 0\u0026ndash;40 cm spacing, weed roots were precisely distinguished from maize roots during root biomass sampling. Following this, the roots underwent washing with tap water, oven-drying, and subsequent biomass determination.\u003c/span\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSoil quality\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the maize harvest seasons spanning 2021 to 2023, soil penetration resistance within crop row for Experiment 1and Experiment 4 was measured at a 0\u0026ndash;30 cm depth interval using a penetrometer (manufactured by Eijkelkamp, The Netherlands). Each measurement point was replicated tenfold. In autumn 2023 (After five years of experimentation), bulk density within crop row assessments involved collecting soil cores at depths of 0\u0026ndash;5 cm, 15\u0026ndash;20 cm, and 25\u0026ndash;30 cm using a standardised 100 cm\u0026sup3; corer. Calculation of bulk density entailed dividing the dry soil mass by the known coring volume post-oven drying. Moreover, an exhaustive soil sampling protocol was implemented. Soil samples were systematically gathered from ten randomly selected points within crop row, pooled to create composite samples. This sampling procedure was replicated over three independent plots. After air-drying and sieving through a 2-mm sieve, these composite samples were subjected to chemical analysis. Organic matter content was approximated via thermogravimetry, tracking mass loss induced by heating. Available nitrogen was extracted with potassium sulfate and quantified using the Kjeldahl method; available phosphorus extraction employed ammonium acetate, with concentrations determined colorimetrically; similarly, available potassium was extracted and its concentration measured by flame photometry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInvestigation of the pest and disease\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Experiments 1 and 4, rust disease incidence on maize plants at the flowering stage was surveyed in 2020. Within each experimental plot, a sample of ten plants was meticulously inspected, with the number of leaves affected by rust meticulously recorded. In the subsequent year, 2021, an outbreak of \u003cem\u003eCurculionoidea\u003c/em\u003e pests was observed during maize\u0026rsquo;s flowering phase. Here, fifteen plants per plot were randomly selected, and the abundance of weevils was enumerated. In both 2020 and 2023, significant damage attributed to \u003cem\u003ePyrausta nubilalis\u003c/em\u003e was detected during the maize seedling stage. Prior to pesticide application, a thorough inspection was conducted to enumerate pest-infested plants in every plot. The incidence of pest infestation was then calculated as a percentage, defined as the number of infested maize plants divided by the total maize plant population within the plot.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, incorporating treatment and experimental year as fixed factors, were employed to discern variations in crop growth, yield, weed biomass, soil properties, and the incidence of diseases and pests. Prior to ANOVA, assessments ensured the normal distribution and homogeneity of variance across datasets. Where necessary, raw data were transformed using natural logarithms (ln) to conform to assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality. The means were compared by the Duncan\u0026rsquo; s test.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank Dr Xiaoyun Zhang, Professor Chunhe Jiang, and Mr Wenhua Li for their\u0026nbsp;assistance during the\u0026nbsp;experiment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNational Natural Science Foundation of China (32160492 and 31401336).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch\u0026nbsp;Foundation\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;Scientific\u0026nbsp;Scholars\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;Moutai\u0026nbsp;Institute\u0026nbsp;(mygccrc [2022] 021 and [2022] 060).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKaixian Wu\u0026nbsp;conceived the idea of this manuscript.\u0026nbsp;Kaixian Wu, Bozhi Wu\u0026nbsp;and Hongli Yang\u0026nbsp;designed the experiment. Kaixian Wu, Shiyong Zhou, and Hongli Yang\u0026nbsp;collected data. Hongli Yang\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Guang Zeng\u0026nbsp;analysed the data. Kaixian Wu authored the original draft, while \u0026nbsp;Hongli Yang\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Guang Zeng contributed to the critical review and editing of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;All authors commented on the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData and materials availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data are available in the main text or the supplementary materials.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eC. Oerke, Crop losses to pests. \u003cem\u003eJ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ag\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003er Sci\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e144\u003c/strong\u003e, 31-34\u0026nbsp;(2006).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eK. Ramesh,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;Weed problems, ecology, and management options in conservation agriculture: Issues and perspectives.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e131\u003c/strong\u003e, 251 (2015).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. J. Butler, J. A. Vickery, K. Norris,\u0026nbsp;Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e315\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;381-384\u0026nbsp;(2007).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Kaur\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Current status of herbicide-resistant weeds and their management in the rice-wheat cropping system of South Asia.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e172\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;307-354\u0026nbsp;(2022).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJ. Storkey, A. Mead, J. Addy, A. J. MacDonald,\u0026nbsp;Agricultural intensification and climate change have increased the threat from weeds.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biol\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;2416-2425\u0026nbsp;(2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Varanasi, P. V. V. Prasad, M. Jugulam,\u0026nbsp;Impact of climate change factors on weeds and herbicide efficacy.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e135\u003c/strong\u003e, 107-146\u0026nbsp;(2016).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eL. P. Gianessi,\u0026nbsp;The increasing importance of herbicides in worldwide crop production.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePest Manag\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sci\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e69\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;1099-1105\u0026nbsp;(2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eR. Unsworth, L. C. Cullen-Unsworth, B. Jones, R. J. Lilley,\u0026nbsp;The planetary role of seagrass conservation.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e377\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;609-613\u0026nbsp;(2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eC. Stromberg, A. C. Staver, The history and challenge of grassy biomes. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e377\u003c/strong\u003e, 592-593 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eG. Martin\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Role of ley pastures in tomorrow\u0026rsquo;s cropping systems. A review.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;17\u0026nbsp;(2020).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eE. P. P. M. Tommaso Tadiello,\u0026nbsp;Growth, weed control, and nitrogen uptake of winter-killed cover crops, and their effects on maize in conservation agriculture.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e, 18(2022).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eD. P. Horvath, S. A. Clay, C. J. Swanton, J. V. Anderson, W. S. Chao,\u0026nbsp;Weed-induced crop yield loss: A new paradigm and new challenges.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTrends Plant Sci\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;567-582\u0026nbsp;(2023).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eP. D. KA Garrett,\u0026nbsp;When does the spatial pattern of weeds matter? Predictions from neighborhood models.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEcol\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Appl\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1250-1259\u0026nbsp;(1998).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eD. R. Pike, E. W. Stoller, L. M. Wax,\u0026nbsp;Modeling soybean growth and canopy apportionment in weed-soybean (\u003cem\u003eGlycine max\u003c/em\u003e)\u0026nbsp;competition.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeed Sci\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;522-527\u0026nbsp;(1990).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. M. Verd\u0026uacute;, M. T. Mas,\u0026nbsp;Mulching as an alternative technique for weed management in mandarin orchard tree rows.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;367-375\u0026nbsp;(2007).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Pau\u0026scaron;ič, S. Tojnko, M. Le\u0026scaron;nik,\u0026nbsp;Permanent, undisturbed, in-row living mulch: A realistic option to replace glyphosate-dominated chemical weed control in intensive pear orchards.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgr\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ecosyst\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Environ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e318\u003c/strong\u003e, 107502 (2021).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. R. C. A. A Scavo,\u0026nbsp;Trifolium subterraneum cover cropping enhances soil fertility and weed seedbank dynamics in a Mediterranean apricot orchard.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e, 6\u0026nbsp;(2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. Tu\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Long-term effects of living grass mulching on soil and water conservation and fruit yield of citrus orchard in south China.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgr\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Water Manage\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e252\u003c/strong\u003e, 106897 (2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eT. Nakamoto, M. Tsukamoto,\u0026nbsp;Abundance and activity of soil organisms in fields of maize grown with a white clover living mulch.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgr\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ecosyst\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Environ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e115\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;34-42\u0026nbsp;(2006).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM. Carof, S. D. Tourdonnet, P. Saulas, D. L. Floch, J. Roger-Estrade,\u0026nbsp;Undersowing wheat with different living mulches in a no-till system. II. Competition for light and nitrogen.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;357-365\u0026nbsp;(2007).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH. Hauggaardnielsen, A. Johansen, M. S. Carter, P. Ambus, E. S. Jensen,\u0026nbsp;Annual maize and perennial grass-clover strip cropping for increased resource use efficiency and productivity using organic farming practice as a model.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEur\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eJ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e47\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;55-64\u0026nbsp;(2013).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eA. R. Kniss,\u0026nbsp;Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNat\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Commun\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 14865 (2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZ. Ye, F. Wu, D. A. Hennessy,\u0026nbsp;environmental and economic concerns surrounding restrictions on glyphosate use in corn.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eProc\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Natl\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Acad\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sci\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e118\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;18\u0026nbsp;(2021).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Fogliatto, A. Ferrero, F. Vidotto,\u0026nbsp;Current and future scenarios of glyphosate use in Europe: Are there alternatives?\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e163\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;219-278\u0026nbsp;(2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eW. J. WW Donald,\u0026nbsp;Interference effects of weed-infested bands in or between crop rows on field corn (\u003cem\u003eZea mays\u003c/em\u003e) yield.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeed Technol\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 755-763\u0026nbsp;(2003).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eF. Jacquet\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Pesticide-free agriculture as a new paradigm for research.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e42\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;(2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eY. Chae, Y. An,\u0026nbsp;Current research trends on plastic pollution and ecological impacts on the soil ecosystem: A review.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEnviron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Pollut\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e240\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;387-395\u0026nbsp;(2018).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eT. Abbas, Z. A. Zahir, M. Naveed, R. J. Kremer,\u0026nbsp;Limitations of existing weed control practices necessitate development of alternative techniques based on biological approaches.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e147\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;239-280\u0026nbsp;(2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eL. Bastiaans, R. Paolini, D. T. Baumann,\u0026nbsp;Focus on ecological weed management: what is hindering adoption?\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeed Res\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e48\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;481-491\u0026nbsp;(2010).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eL. N. Kolb, E. R. Gallandt,\u0026nbsp;Weed management in organic cereals: Advances and opportunities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eOrganic Agriculture\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;23-42\u0026nbsp;(2012).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Gruber, C. Pekrun, J. M\u0026ouml;hring, W. Claupein,\u0026nbsp;Long-term yield and weed response to conservation and stubble tillage in SW Germany.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSoil Till\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Res\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e121\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;49-56\u0026nbsp;(2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eG. Wei, X. Kong, Y. Wang,\u0026nbsp;Will joining cooperative promote farmers to replace chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers?\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInt. J. Environ. Res. Public Health\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;16647\u0026nbsp;(2022).\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eN. Weithmann\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic into the environment.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSci\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Adv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, eaap8060 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Reardon,\u0026nbsp;Manure fertilizer increases antibiotic resistance.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;16081\u0026nbsp;(2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Ma\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Variations and determinants of carbon content in plants: A global synthesis.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBiogeosciences\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;693-702\u0026nbsp;(2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eM. Triolet\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;Weeds harbor an impressive diversity of fungi, which offers possibilities for biocontrol.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAppl\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Environ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Microb\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e88\u003c/strong\u003e, e217721 (2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH. O. A. P. Pauline dentika,\u0026nbsp;weeds as pathogen hosts and disease risk for crops in the wake of a reduced use of herbicides: Evidence from Yam (\u003cem\u003eDioscorea alata\u003c/em\u003e)\u0026nbsp;fields and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColletotrichum\u003c/em\u003e pathogens in the tropics.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Fungi\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 283\u0026nbsp;(2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eP. B\u0026agrave;rberi,\u0026nbsp;Ecological weed management in Sub-Saharan Africa:\u0026nbsp;prospects and implications on other agroecosystem services.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAdv\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Agron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e156\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;219-264\u0026nbsp;(2019).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS. Petit, A. Boursault, M. Guilloux, N. Munier-Jolain, X. Reboud,\u0026nbsp;Weeds in agricultural landscapes. A review.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sustain\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dev\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 309-317 (2011). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5317116/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5317116/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAcross the agricultural chronicle, mankind has relentlessly pursued myriad strategies to vanquish weeds and avert yield diminishment. Yet, a pragmatic technology adept at leveraging weeds as a beneficial biological resource, without compromising crop yields, has remained elusive. Our study unveils an innovative Integrated Technology to Utilise and Suppress Weeds (ITUSW) for sustainable maize cultivation. ITUSW ingeniously harnesses inter-row weed biomass and curtails intra-row weeds, attaining sustainable maize yields without sacrifice, outshining conventional global weed management practices. This technology amalgamates a spectrum of non-chemical weed suppression tactics into a practical system, harmonizing with globally recognized sustainable agricultural principles. By championing ITUSW, this research propels agriculture towards enhanced sustainability, redefining weeds from foes to allies, safeguarding yields and the environment.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"New technology to utilise and suppress weeds for sustainable maize production","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-11-05 06:28:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5317116/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"bed9b00c-f9e5-4837-9ac5-4cbce3bac2f2","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":39624882,"name":"Scientific community and society/Agriculture"},{"id":39624883,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology/Agroecology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-11-05T06:28:41+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-11-05 06:28:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5317116","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5317116","identity":"rs-5317116","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}