Preliminary Research on the Efficacy of Selected Herbicides Approved for Use in Sustainable Agriculture Using Spring Cereals as an Example

Szulc, Piotr; Bauza-Kaszewska, Justyna; Selwet, Marek; Ambroży-Deręgowska, Katarzyna

doi:10.3390/su17157090

Open AccessArticle

Preliminary Research on the Efficacy of Selected Herbicides Approved for Use in Sustainable Agriculture Using Spring Cereals as an Example

¹

Department of Agronomy, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznań, Poland

²

Department of Microbiology and Plant Ecology, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, 85-029 Bydgoszcz, Poland

³

Department of Soil Science and Microbiology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Szydłowska 50, 60-656 Poznań, Poland

⁴

Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7090; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157090

Submission received: 5 May 2025 / Revised: 17 July 2025 / Accepted: 31 July 2025 / Published: 5 August 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Crop Production and Plant Science: Theories, Methods, Modeling and Applications)

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of selected herbicides permitted for use in sustainable agriculture, specifically targeting spring rye and spring barley in a no-till farming system. The application of chemical herbicide protection in the cultivation of spring rye and barley significantly increased the yield and improved the quality parameters of the harvested grain, with the most pronounced effect observed in spring barley. The effectiveness of the herbicide treatment in reducing the number of weeds was 99.4% for spring rye and 82.39% for spring barley. The study demonstrated that the application of chemical herbicide protection had a positive impact on the quality parameters of spring barley grain. Both the thousand-grain weight and protein content were significantly higher in the grain collected from protected plots compared to the control plots. By utilizing herbicides permitted for use in integrated production (IP) in a sustainable manner, we protect the environment while minimizing the impact on crop yields and maintaining the quality of the harvested produce.

Keywords:

herbicides; sustainable agriculture; spring cereals; weed control

1. Introduction

Weeds, or undesirable plants in agricultural fields, are one of the main factors significantly reducing crop yields, despite efforts to control their presence since the beginning of agriculture [1]. Weed infestation and its severity are the key factors impacting the crop, rather than the mere presence of weeds. The breakthrough in weed control occurred in the 1940s with the introduction of the first chemical compound used to restrict the presence of unwanted plants in crops. This was 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which remains in use to this day [2,3]. At the time, it was believed that the development of chemical weed control would permanently solve the problem. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Excessive and improper use of herbicides has led to the emergence of weed resistance, particularly against substances from the group of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) inhibitors (HRAC Group 2) and acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors (HRAC Group 2). This resistance can develop just within three to five years. In Poland, herbicides account for 67.6% of the plant protection products used. Such a high proportion of these substances confirms that weeds are the primary problem in reducing crop yield and decreasing its quality. It is worth noting that there are biological preparations used in the management of weeds, which typically contain fungi, but also mites, insects, pathogens [4], and allelopathic compounds [5]. Countries such as the USA, China, and Canada play a leading role in the application of bioherbicides in crop cultivation [6]. In Europe, research on bioherbicides is conducted on a smaller scale, and the primary challenge in their application is the unpredictability of biological interactions within agricultural ecosystems [7]. These formulations exhibit selective action, typically targeting only a single weed species, which has its advantages and disadvantages [8]. The introduction of bioherbicides to the market and their widespread use may encounter significant challenges. Consequently, research on their application and impact on weed resistance, as well as broader environmental protection, continues to advance [9,10,11]. Among the commonly used plant cultivation systems, the no-till system is gaining increasing popularity. This cultivation method is more environmentally friendly, particularly for soil health; however, it can often lead to excessive weed growth. Research by Małecka et al. [12] and Wrzesinska et al. [13] demonstrated that, regardless of the type of soil studied, the highest number of weed seeds was found in plots cultivated using plowing practices. Cultivation methods significantly affect the variation in weed presence within spring barley crops [14]. Higher rainfall during the early growth phases of barley tends to promote weed proliferation, particularly under conventional cultivation conditions. Implementing reduced or no tillage can lead to greater weed infestation, especially when May experiences substantial rainfall coupled with temperatures falling below the long-term average. This results in an increase in both the quantity and biomass of weeds, aligning with the critical phase of vigorous barley growth. Moreover, intensified nitrogen fertilization has been shown to consistently decrease the density of weeds within the crop canopy [14]. The intensity of weed infestation is significantly influenced by various control methods, including preventive measures, agronomic and mechanical practices, mulching, unconventional physical techniques, as well as biological and chemical methods [15]. Within organic farming systems established on Stagnic Luvisol soils—characterized by moderate macroelement levels, neutral pH, and a temperate climate—the implementation of an innovative method involving the cultivation of spring barley alongside a living mulch of red clover or a red clover–Italian ryegrass mix, combined with the simultaneous inoculation of phosphorus-solubilizing and nitrogen-fixing bacteria, should be recommended. Nevertheless, further investigation is necessary across diverse soil types and climatic zones worldwide, with consideration given to climate-adapted bacterial strains and appropriate living mulch species [16]. In integrated cereal protection, particular emphasis is placed on non-chemical methods, such as appropriate crop rotation, mechanical weed control, optimal fertilization levels, and cultivar selection. Nonetheless, completely abandoning chemical methods is not feasible. Therefore, when selecting herbicides, an important aspect is the rotation of active substances used in treatments, as well as the species of weeds present in the field and the severity of their infestation. These actions align with the European Union’s philosophy of integrated pest management, which aims to utilize all available plant protection methods—particularly non-chemical approaches—in a manner that minimizes risks to human and animal health, as well as to the environment. The result of integrated pest management is integrated production, i.e., a food quality system that sustainably applies technological and biological advancements in cultivation, plant protection, and fertilization. Unlike integrated pest management, this system is voluntary, and since 2023, it has been one of the eco-schemes eligible for additional subsidies. It is important to note that not all herbicides are permitted for use within this system. The evaluation is conducted on plant protection products rather than the active substances themselves. Products are excluded if they exhibit acute toxicity to humans, or residual action, lack renewed authorization, or contain active substances classified by the European Commission as Candidates for Substitution. Currently, almost 450 active substances of plant protection products can be used in the EU. In 2021–2023, the EU withdrew from the use of 60 active substances, which in Poland concerned almost 350 preparations, or almost 15% of all registered. The withdrawal of active substances of plant protection products by the EU will contribute to the increase in pathogen resistance, greater use of plant protection products, reduction and deterioration of crop quality, increased production costs, and an increased risk of using plant protection products illegally.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of selected herbicides permitted for use in integrated crop production, specifically targeting spring rye and spring barley in a no-till farming system. It was also important to test hypotheses regarding the differences in the mean values of the analyzed traits. These hypotheses assumed that the mean value of a trait in the group where a particular treatment was not applied was statistically lower (or higher) than the mean value of the same trait in the group where the treatment was conducted.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Field Characteristics

The research was conducted in Łężce, located in the Greater Poland Voivodeship, Poland (52°35′45″ N, 16°10′47″ E). The experiment was a one-factor design conducted at two levels (two plots) with three replicates and included the cultivation of spring barley and spring rye. The dimensions of the experimental plots were 1.5 m × 2 m. The control plots were covered with protective foil during herbicide application. Table 1 presents the meteorological data from 2024 obtained from the WODR station located in Chrzypsko Wielkie (52°37′37″ N, 16°13′8″ E) and the station in Lutomek (52°36′15″ N, 16°9′1″ E).

2.2. Seed Selection

The plant cultivars selected for the experiment were certified seeds. When selecting the cultivars, particular attention was paid to the specific characteristics of the site where they would be cultivated. Factors such as the soil’s agronomic categories, soil quality classification, and the degree of weed infestation in prior years were carefully evaluated. The cultivar KWS Premis was selected for spring barley. It is a fodder cultivar characterized by high grain yield and relatively good resistance to net blotch. The cultivar of spring rye used in the experiment was SM Ananke, bred by HR Smolice, Poland. It is an early cultivar characterized by high grain yield, exceptional resistance to powdery mildew and tan spot, as well as heavy and uniform grains.

2.3. Soil Characteristics

The experiment was conducted on light, sandy soil, with a soil quality class ranging from IIIb to V. Soil nutrient content and pH are presented in Table 2.

2.4. Agricultural Practices

A Horsch Tiger AS four-bar cultivator, with a working width of 4 m, was used for deep soil loosening. Shallow tillage was performed using a Väderstad Carrier 650 stubble cultivator (Väderstad, Sweden), with a working width of 6.5 m. The preceding crop for each plant was maize grown for grain. Table 3 presents the types of agricultural practices and their execution dates.

The type of mineral fertilization applied was based on the results of soil sample analyses and also depended on weather conditions and the nutritional requirements of the cultivated plants. The focus was on providing nitrogen and sulfur, which is particularly prone to leaching from the soil. Fertilization of spring rye was based solely on a pre-sowing application of 150 kg/ha Saletrosan. In barley cultivation, Saletrosan 26 was applied pre-sowing at a dose of 200 kg/ha and 100 kg/ha ammonium nitrate was applied post-sowing (Table 4).

2.5. Sowing Practices

Crops were sown using a Pneusej M450 pneumatic seeder with a working width of 4.5 m. Due to cultivation on light soil, the sowing depth was 6 cm. Spring rye was sown on March 30 over an area of 10.27 ha. The sowing rate was 140 kg/ha, with a sowing depth of 3 cm. Spring barley was sown on April 7 at a rate of 160 kg/ha, with a sowing depth of 4 cm. The sowing area was 14.6 ha.

2.6. Applied Herbicides

The herbicides used in the experiment are listed in Table 5. The doses of herbicides applied were in line with the manufacturers recommendations. Mepengo 150 WG contains active substances with two mechanisms of action. Florasulam is a compound from the triazolopyrimidine group, designed to control dicotyledonous weeds. Absorbed by the leaves, it inhibits enzyme activity during amino acid synthesis. It is an inhibitor of acetolactate synthase (ALS). It works at 4–5 °C, and the maximum temperature is considered to be 25 °C.

The next active substance is methyl iodosulfuron, which belongs to the group of sulfonylurea derivatives. In addition to controlling dicotyledonous weeds, it is also recommended for the destruction of Aperaspica venti. It inhibits the activity of acetolactate synthase (ALS), an enzyme necessary for amino acid synthesis. The maximum application temperature is 20 °C.

The last substance is tribenuron-methyl also classified as a sulfonylurea derivative. It controls only dicotyledonous weeds. It arrests cell division, preventing the production of essential branched-chain amino acids such as valine and isoleucine.

2.7. Evaluation of Herbicidal Efficacy Based on the Number of Weeds and Measurement of Weed Fresh Weight

The effectiveness of the applied herbicides permitted for use in integrated plant production was estimated using the weight and frame method. Observations were conducted four weeks after the application of the herbicides. A frame measuring 0.25 m × 1 m was used for the experiments. In the initial phase, weed species were identified, then counted, and each species was weighed separately on a scale with an accuracy of 0.01 g. In the second phase of the study, the percentage of weed control per square meter was calculated.

2.8. Yield

The ears and seeds were harvested manually from random locations of 1 m² and the number of ears in the area was counted. The ears were then threshed using an electric thresher. The obtained grain weight was converted into yield expressed in t/ha. The area required to produce 1 ton of grain (ha/ton) and the grain weight from a single ear (g) were determined.

2.9. Thousand-Grain Weight

From each plot, two random samples of 500 grains each were weighed, the average was calculated, and then it was multiplied by 2.

2.10. Protein and Moisture Content

The protein and moisture content of the seeds were measured in 0.5 kg samples using an Infratec 1241 FOSS analyzer (near-infrared transmission spectrometer). Solid, straightforward, and reliable, Infratec™ draws on the latest advances in NIR technology, connectivity, and usability. It makes the job of quality control easier and less time-consuming as a reliable cornerstone for any grain handling operation.

2.11. Statistical Analysis

The test selected for comparing the two means had to verify the assumptions (i) whether the studied populations had normal distributions, and (ii) if there was homogeneity of variance between the groups.

The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to verify the hypothesis of normal distribution of the analyzed trait. The F-Snedecor test was used to analyze the hypothesis of homogeneity of variance. The following statistical tests were used to compare two means [19]:

Student’s t-test was utilized when independent samples came from two populations with normal distribution and the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met;
Student’s t-test with Cochran–Cox correction was applied when independent samples were derived from two populations with normal distribution, but their variances were not homogeneous;
Mann–Whitney U-test was employed in cases where the assumption of normality for the analyzed variables was not met.

All calculations were carried out using the STATISTICA 13.3 software package (2017). Statistical significance was set at the level α = 0.05.

3. Results

Winter months were marked by heavy rainfall, which hindered early cultivation practices. Moisture conditions at the time of plant sowing were optimal; however, a water deficit occurred shortly afterward, significantly limiting the emergence of spring barley. May was characterized by relatively high average temperatures and very low total precipitation. This made it difficult to apply herbicides scheduled for that period. On the other hand, just before the harvest in July, there was a significant rainfall of 153 mm.

Very high potassium levels were recorded in each of the experimental plots. The levels of other macronutrients were determined at moderate to high levels. The soil pH in each tested sample was determined to be slightly acidic, with the lowest value of 6.2 found in the plots designated for spring barley cultivation.

The following weeds were identified in the cultivation of spring rye: Chenopodium album (white goosefoot), Polygonum aviculare (common knotgrass), and Erodium cicutarium (common storksbill). Table 6 presents the herbicide protection applied and the degree of control of each weed species calculated based on their numbers.

Table 7 shows the herbicidal efficacy based on total weed weight and number of weeds. The experiment revealed that the highest number of weeds per unit area was observed in the plots where no chemical herbicide protection was applied. The difference amounted to as high as 224 plants/m². It was also shown that they had significantly higher weed biomass compared to the plots treated with the herbicide (Mepengo 150 WG). The effectiveness of the applied herbicides was 99.4% for the number of weeds and 96.6% for their biomass, making it the most effective compared to the protection of spring rye.

Spring barley cultivation had a higher number of weed species compared to spring rye (Table 8). The weeds found in this area included Chenopodium album (white goosefoot), Viola arvensis (field pansy), Geranium pusillum (small-flowered crane’s bill), Centaurea cyanus (cornflower), Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd’s purse), and Stellaria media (chickweed).

Analysis of the number of weeds per unit area indicated that the control plots (without herbicide application) exhibited a significantly higher value of this parameter compared to the plots treated with chemical protection (Mepengo 150 WG). The effectiveness of the treatment aimed at reducing the number of weeds per unit area was 82.39%. When assessing weed biomass, significantly higher values of this parameter were recorded in the control plots compared to those treated with an herbicide (Table 9).

Analysis of the grain yield of spring rye revealed a significant difference between the examined variants. Significantly higher generative yield was observed in the plot with herbicide treatment compared to the control (difference: 1.18 t/ha). To produce 1 ton of grain, a significantly larger area was required in the absence of chemical protection compared to the plots where such protection was applied. Analyzing the weight of grain per ear also demonstrated that the ears from the herbicide-treated plot had significantly higher values of this parameter compared to the control plots. On the other hand, the number of ears per unit area did not differ significantly (Table 10).

The generative yield of spring barley in the field experiment was significantly influenced by chemical weed control (Table 11). Significantly higher grain yield was recorded for the plots with chemical treatment compared to the control plot, which did not receive chemical protection. The difference between the variants tested was 2.32 t/ha. The aforementioned description of the trait was reflected in the area required to produce 1 ton of grain. For the number of ears per unit area, a significantly greater count was determined in the variant with chemical protection compared to the control object. The difference between the plots was 323.5 ears per m². Grain weight per ear did not differ significantly.

The conducted field study showed that both moisture and protein content in spring rye grain depended on the application of chemical herbicide protection (Table 12). It was found that the grain from the unprotected plot had a significantly higher water content compared to the protected plot. On the other hand, grain from the herbicide-treated plot had a significantly lower protein content compared to the control plot. Thousand-grain weight did not show statistically significant differences.

Analysis of spring barley grain characteristics (Table 13) revealed that the water content in the grain was significantly higher in the untreated plot compared to the one where herbicide protection was applied. Conversely, both thousand-grain weight and grain protein content were significantly higher when herbicide treatment was applied compared to no chemical protection.

4. Discussion

Wicki [20] demonstrated that the use of certified seed material, e.g., for spring barley, can contribute to a 15–20% increase in yield.

The plants were cultivated using a deep, full-surface no-till system. Due to the significant proportion of light soils on the farm, this system has been implemented for the past 12 years. It reduced the phenomenon of organic matter oxidation, degradation of the granular structure, and the occurrence of erosion [21]. No-till farming also contributes to increased biological activity in the soil. However, a challenge is to limit the increased level of weed infestation caused by the accumulation of weed seeds in the upper layer of the soil. Due to the diverse crop rotation, no increased pressure of diseases and pests was observed.

4.1. Spring Rye

Spring rye is an excellent crop for cultivation in unfavorable habitat conditions. It is characterized by low thermal, water, and soil requirements. It is distinguished by its high resistance to the toxic effects of aluminum ions [22,23]. The present study showed that the only weed present in the cultivation of spring rye was Chenopodium album. This indicates that spring rye effectively competes with weeds, making its cultivation compatible with the principles of integrated crop production. Despite the presence of Chenopodium album in the rye stand, its plants remained relatively small in size, as 225 Chenopodium album plants in the untreated plot weighed less than 80 g. Laboratory studies by Stupnicka-Rodzynkiewicz et al. [24] investigated the potential use of allelopathic interactions of plants to mitigate weed infestation. Rye biomass extract was shown to reduce weed seed germination to the greatest extent, reducing it by approximately 69%. Mushtaq et al. [25] observed that allelopathic substances from rye inhibited germination and growth of Amaranthus retroflexus L. (redroot pigweed). Kaczmarek [26] reported that allelopathic substances present in rye included, among others, hydroxamic acids: DIBOA (2,4-dihydroxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one) and BOA (2(3H)benzoxazolinone). Understanding allelopathic relationships can significantly contribute to reducing herbicide application. Urban [27] investigated the ecological niche of spring cereal weeds and showed that the cultivation of rye and barley had the lowest levels of weed infestation. In the present study, the effectiveness of the herbicide treatment on the spring rye plantation was found to be the highest, reaching 99.4% (the number of weed plants). The conducted field experiment demonstrated the positive effect of herbicide application on the yield of spring rye grain. The difference between the chemically protected plot and the control was 1.18 t/ha. The generative yield from the chemically protected plot was 3.18 t/ha. An interesting finding was that the number of ears per square meter did not differ significantly between the chemically protected plot and the control. In contrast, a significant difference was observed in grain weight per ear. This indicated that the presence of weeds did not significantly affect the tillering of spring rye plants but caused weaker ear formation. The average yield of spring rye was 2.4 t/ha. The moisture content in the grain was higher in samples collected from the untreated plot, while thousand-grain weight did not differ significantly. However, there was a trend observed for grain from the treated plot to have a higher TGW. An interesting finding was that the protein content in the grain was significantly higher in the control samples (without herbicide treatment). This could be caused by the so-called dilution effect. This indicates that an increase in yield results in a lower protein and gluten content in the grain. It should be noted that grain samples collected from plots without herbicide protection contained sclerotia of ergot (Claviceps purpurea, formerly Sphacelia segetum), while samples from plots treated with herbicides showed no presence of ergot. As a cross-pollinated plant, rye is more susceptible to infection during pollination. This susceptibility can be attributed to the glumes, which are typically open during flowering [28]. It is likely that weed infestation affected the pollination process in rye. In plots without chemical protection, the pollination process was less effective, allowing for the development of Claviceps purpurea. This is important information, as these sclerotia contain harmful substances, including ergotoxins and ergotamine, which can cause poisoning in humans and animals when ingested [29,30].

4.2. Spring Barley

The cultivation of spring barley had the highest species diversity of weeds, with the most significant being Chenopodium album, Viola arvensis, and Geranium pusillum. In addition to these, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Stellaria media, and Centaurea cyanus were also present. The spring form of barley is considered to be weakly competitive against weeds due to its short stem. A key aspect is the proper selection of the site for cultivating this crop, as it is quite demanding [31]. Orzech et al. [32] showed in their study that the soil cultivation method significantly influenced weed infestation in spring barley. The lowest weed infestation was recorded with conventional plow-based cultivation, while the highest occurred with direct sowing. No-till cultivation (applied in the present study) yielded intermediate results. Regardless of the cultivation system employed, the dominant species were, as demonstrated in the present study, Chenopodium album, Capsella bursa-pastoris, and Stellaria media. The species not observed in the current work but recorded in the 2011 experiment included Cirsium arvense and Sonchus oleraceus. In this study, the efficacy of the herbicide treatment was 82.39%, which was lower than that observed in spring rye cultivation, despite the use of the same formulation. The reason could be the highly uneven emergence of barley due to the lack of rainfall after sowing and the specific characteristics of the site [33]. The part of the field (primarily elevated areas) intended for spring barley cultivation contained loamy sand. This indicates a more difficult start of barley growth and provides greater opportunities for weed development. For spring barley, the final average yield was 3.1 t/ha. On most of the field, the soil pH for spring barley cultivation was within the acceptable range, exceeding 6.0. In these areas, grain yield was significantly higher compared to locations with a pH below 6.0. The herbicide treatment significantly affected the generative yield of spring barley. The amount of grain harvested from the protected plot was 2.32 t/ha higher, at a total of 4.4 t/ha. This showed that the herbicide treatment had the strongest effect on the grain yield of spring barley compared to pea and spring rye crops. This could be due to the previously mentioned low competitiveness of this crop against weeds, which resulted in the strongest positive effect of the treatment. Interestingly, grain weight per ear did not differ statistically between the protected plots and the control (unprotected), while there was a significant difference in the number of ears per unit area (difference: 323.5 ears/m²). This stays in contrast to the situation observed in spring rye cultivation. Spring barley is the most highly tillering cereal, and the difference in yield was primarily due to the number of ears per m². This suggests that this was the presence of weeds that primarily limited the tillering of barley plants. Research by Cierpiała and Wesołowski [34] also showed that spring barley cultivated with chemical protection had a higher number of ears per m² and, consequently, higher yields compared to the organic farming system. It should be noted that net blotch (Pyrenophora teres, Drechslera teres) appeared in the later developmental stages of spring barley. Despite this, no fungicide treatment was applied, which may have negatively affected the yield. The study demonstrated that the application of chemical herbicide protection had a positive impact on the quality parameters of spring barley grain. Both the thousand-grain weight and protein content were significantly higher in the grain collected from protected plots compared to the control plots. The moisture content of grain from plots where the herbicide was applied was also lower compared to the samples collected from untreated plots. However, the study by Cierpiała and Wesołowski [34] indicated differences only in protein content, favoring the conventional cultivation system, while TGW was not significantly different.

5. Conclusions

The application of chemical herbicide protection in the cultivation of spring rye and barley significantly increased the yield and improved the quality parameters of the harvested grain, with the most pronounced effect observed in spring barley. The effectiveness of the herbicide treatment in reducing the number of weeds was 99.4% for spring rye and 82.39% for spring barley. The most troublesome and predominant weed was Chenopodium album (common lambsquarters). The integrated production system is an excellent “intermediary” between the conventional and organic methods. By utilizing herbicides permitted for use in integrated production (IP) in a sustainable manner, we protect the environment while minimizing the impact on crop yields and maintaining the quality of the harvested produce. A high level of crop yield increases the producer’s chances of achieving a positive economic balance, while the high quality of yields contributes to the health of both humans and animals that consume products derived from agricultural processing. The research clearly demonstrated that the complete elimination of herbicide use is not feasible. Various methods of weed management in crop production, such as proper crop rotation and agronomic practices, should be integrated to improve effectiveness. However, chemical methods should not be excluded from the range of available options. To achieve a more satisfactory interaction between society and the environment in sustainable agriculture, it is required to anticipate competition for timely change, human activity, and resource consumption to avoid possible conflicts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S., M.S., J.B.-K. and K.A.-D.; methodology, P.S.; software, K.A.-D., P.S. and M.S.; validation, P.S., M.S. and K.A.-D.; formal analysis, K.A.-D.; investigation, P.S. and M.S.; resources, M.S. and K.A.-D.; data curation, P.S., M.S. and K.A.-D.; writing—P.S. and M.S.; original draft preparation, P.S., M.S., K.A.-D. and J.B.-K.; writing—P.S., M.S. and K.A.-D.; review and editing, P.S. and M.S.; visualization, K.A.-D. and M.S.; supervision, P.S., M.S. and K.A.-D.; project administration, P.S., and M.S.; funding acquisition, P.S., M.S. and K.A.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Poznan University of Life Sciences, Department of Agronomy.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Nachiketa. Bio-herbicides: Safe Approach. Just Agric. 2023, 3, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
Korbas, M.; Paradowski, A.; Węgorek, P.; Jajor, E.; Horoszkiewicz-Janka, J.; Zamojska, J.; Danielewicz, J.; Czyczewski, M.; Dworzańska, D. Vademecum Środków Ochrony Roślin, 1st ed.; Agronom: Poznań, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Costea, L.M.; Rad, R.; Cimpoiu, C.; Meghesan, A. Determination of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d) from tomatoes by lc-ms/ms analysis. Stud. UBB Chem. 2022, 67, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Islam, A.K.M.M.; Karim, S.M.R.; Kheya, S.A.; Yeasmin, S. Unlocking the potential of bioherbicides for sustainable and environment friendly weed management. Heliyon 2024, 10, e36088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
Sekutowski, T. Alleloherbicydy i bioherbicydy—Mit czy rzeczywistość? J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2010, 55, 84–90. [Google Scholar]
Kabaluk, J.T.; Goettel Mark, S.; Svircev Antonet, M.; Woo, S.G. (Eds.) Use and Regulation of Microbial Pesticides in Representative Jurisdictions Worldwide; IOBC Global: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2010; 99p. [Google Scholar]
Duke, S.O.; Pan, Z.; Bajsa-Hirschel, J.; Boyette, C.D. The potential future roles of natural compounds and microbial bioherbicides in weed management in crops. Adv. Weed Sci. 2022, 40, e020210054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Duke, S.O. Why are there no widely successful microbial bioherbicides for weed management in crops? Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cholajda, K.; Matysiak, K.; Kierzek, R.; Krzymińska, J. Biologiczne zwalczanie chwastów—Perspektywy i ograniczenia. Prog. Plant Prot. 2021, 61, 103–112. [Google Scholar]
Meena, S.; Gadekar, K.E.; Kumawat, K.K.; Sharma, A.K. Harnessing Nature’s Allies: Biological Weed Control Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture. Agri. Artic. 2024, 4, 370–373. [Google Scholar]
Duke, S.O.; Marrone, P.G.; Vurro, M. The future of microbial bioherbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 6–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Małecka, I.; Blecharczyk, A.; Sawinska, Z. Zachwaszczenie jęczmienia jarego w zależności od systemów uprawy roli i roślin mulczujących. Zesz. Probl. Postępów Nauk Rol. 2003, 490, 163–169. [Google Scholar]
Wrzesinska, E.; Dzienia, S.; Wereszczaka, J. Wpływ systemów uprawy roli na ilość i rozmieszczenie nasion chwastów w glebie. Acta Sci. Polonorum. Agric. 2003, 2, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
Wacławowicz, R.; Giemza, M.; Pytlarz, E.; Wenda-Piesik, A. The impact of cultivation systems on weed supression and the canopy architecture of spring barley. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Woźnica, Z. Herbologia. In Podstawy Biologii, Ekologii i Zwalczania Chwastów, 1st ed.; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Górski, R.; Rosa, R.; Niewiadomska, A.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Płaza, A. Innovative spring barley cultivation technology based on the use of microbial products together with living mulch in organic farming. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molga, M. Agricultural Meteorology; PWRiL: Warsaw, Poland, 1986; pp. 470–475. [Google Scholar]
Grzebisz, W. Fertilization of crops. In Fundamentals of Fertilization; PWRiL: Warsaw, Poland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Stanisz, A. Biostatystyka; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Kraków, Poland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Wicki, L. Produkcyjne i ekonomiczne efekty stosowania kwalifikowanego materiału siewnego w produkcji zbóż jarych i ziemniaków. Rocz. Nauk. Rol. Ser. G. 2008, 95, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jaskulski, D.; Jaskulska, I. Współczesne Sposoby i Systemy Uprawy Roli w Teorii i Praktyce Rolniczej; CDR: Poznań, Poland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Grochowski, L.; Galek, R. Genetyczna-Hodowlana Ocena Wybranych Cech Ilościowych Rodów Żyta Jarego; Materiały z I Krajowej Konferencji „Hodowla Roślin”: Poznań, Poland, 1997; Volume 11, pp. 187–190. [Google Scholar]
Hołubowicz-Kliza, G. Uprawa żyta jarego. In Instrukcja Upowszechnieniowa nr 238; Wydawnictwo IUNG-PIB: Puławy, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Stupnicka–Rodzynkiewicz, E.; Dubert, F.; Hochół, T.; Hura, T.; Lepiarczyk, A.; Stokłosa, A. Możliwość wykorzystania allelopatycznych oddziaływań roślin do ograniczania zachwaszczenia. Zesz. Probl. Postępów Nauk. Rol. 2004, 496, 343–355. [Google Scholar]
Mushtaq, W.; Fauconnier, M.L.; de Clerck, C. Assessment of induced allelopathy in crop-weed co-culture with rye-pigweed model. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 10446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kaczmarek, S. Wykorzystanie potencjału allelopatycznego roślin w wybranych uprawach rolniczych. Prog. Plant Prot. 2009, 49, 1503–1511. [Google Scholar]
Urban, M.; Adamczewski, K.; Dobrzański, A. Nisza ekologiczna chwastów w odmianach zbóż jarych uprawianych po rzepaku ozimym. Prog. Plant Prot. 2013, 53, 106–108. [Google Scholar]
Tratwal, A.; Bereś, P.K.; Korbas, M.; Danielewicz, J.; Jajor, E.; Horoszkiewicz–Janka, J.; Jakubowska, M. Poradnik Sygnalizatora Ochrony Zbóż, 1st ed.; TOTEM: Poznań, Poland, 2017; pp. 75–79. [Google Scholar]
Korbas, M.; Czubiński, T.; Horoszkiewicz–Janka, J.; Jajor, E.; Danielewicz, J. Atlas Chorób Roślin Rolniczych Dla Praktyków, 1st ed.; PWR: Poznań, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Miedaner, T.; Geiger, H.H. Biology, genetics, and management of ergot (Claviceps spp.) in rye, sorghum, and pearl millet. Toxins 2015, 7, 659–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Buczyński, G.; Marks, M. Zachwaszczenie i plonowanie jęczmienia jarego w płodozmianach i w monokulturze. Zesz. Probl. Postępów Nauk Rol. 2003, 490, 41–47. [Google Scholar]
Orzech, K.; Rychcik, B.; Stępień, A. Wpływ sposobów uprawy roli na zachwaszczenie i plonowanie jęczmienia jarego. Fragm. Agron. 2011, 28, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
Bartosiewicz, B.; Jadczyszyn, J. The impact of drought stress on the production of spring barley in Poland. Pol. J. Agron. 2021, 45, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cierpiała, R.; Wesołowski, M. Plonowanie i jakość ziarna nagoziarnistej formy jęczmienia jarego uprawianego w systemie rolnictwa ekologicznego i konwencjonalnego. Agricultura 2015, 70, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Table 1. Meteorological data from stations in Chryston Wielkie and Lutomek in 2024.

Months	Average Monthly Temperature (°C)	Total Precipitation (mm)	Hydrothermal Coefficient of Water Provision According to Molga [17]
January	1.91	34	5.74
February	7.04	68	3.33
March	9.43	22	0.75
April	14.19	33	0.77
May	18.28	32	0.56
June	No data	47	-
July	No data	153	-
In the growing season	10.17	389	2.23

Table 2. Average results of soil sample analysis determined before the experiment.

Plant	Macronutrient	Result	Unit	Nutrient Content [18]
Spring barley	Phosphorus	13.2	mg P₂O₅/100 g soil	Average
	Potassium	33.8	mg K₂O/100 g soil	Very high
	Magnesium	4.1	mg Mg/100 g soil	Average
	pH (in 1M KCl)	6.2	-	Slightly acidic
Spring rye	Phosphorus	12.7	mg P₂O₅/100 g soil	Average
	Potassium	20.4	mg K₂O/100 g soil	Very high
	Magnesium	3.9	mg Mg/100 g soil	Average
	pH (in 1M KCl)	6.4	-	Slightly acidic

Table 3. Agricultural practices.

Plant	Agricultural Practices
Plant	Treatment Type	Date
Spring rye	Mulching	10 January 2024
	Deep cultivation (17 cm)	10 March 2024
	Shallow cultivation (5 cm)	27 March 2024
Spring barley	Mulching	11 January 2024
	Deep cultivation (17 cm)	2 April 2024
	Shallow cultivation (2–3 cm)	7 April 2024

Table 4. Applied fertilization.

Plant	Fertilizer	Dose (kg/ha)	Nutrient Quantity (kg/ha)	Date
Spring rye	Saletrosan 26	150	26 N, 32.5 S	27 March 2024
Spring barley	Saletrosan 26	200	26 N, 32.5 S	30 March 2024
Spring barley	Ammonium nitrate	100	32 N	28 May 2024

Table 5. Herbicides applied in the study.

Plant	Preparation	Dose	Date	BBCH *
Spring rye	Mepengo 150 WG	0.18 kg/ha	21 May 2024	30
Spring rye	Adjuwant Super	0.1 L/ha	21 May 2024	30
Spring barley	Mepengo 150 WG	0.18 kg/ha	21 May 2024	29
Spring barley	Adjuwant Super	0.1 L/ha	21 May 2024	29

* Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt, und CHemische Industrie.

Table 6. Weed occurrence, applied chemical control, and weed control level in spring rye cultivation.

Plot Number		Weeds	Plot Number
1			1		2 (Control)
Active Ingredient (Trade Name)	Herbicide Dose		Plants/m² (Average)	Control (%)	Plants/m² (Average)	Control (%)
Florasulam, iodosulfuronmethyl sodium, tribenuronmethyl (Mepengo 150 WG)	0.18 kg/ha	CHEAL	1.3	99.5	220	-
		POLAV	14.6	100	1.3	-
		EROCI	1.3	100	4	-

CHEAL—Chenopodium album, POLAV—Polygonum aviculare, EROCI—Erodium cicutarium.

Table 7. Herbicide efficacy based on total weed weight and number of weeds in a spring rye plantation.

Trait	Herbicide Application
Trait	Without Treatment	With Treatment
Number of weeds [plants/m²]	225.3 ± 123.7 a	1.3 ± 2.3 b
Weed biomass [plants/m²]	79.7 ± 38.4 a	2.7 ± 4.6 b
Efficacy [%]	-	For the number of weeds—99.4; For the biomass—96.6