Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:23:23.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Flame Weeding Effects on Several Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Juan Jose Cisneros
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Bernard H. Zandstra*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Zandstra@msu.edu

Abstract

Flaming can be an effective nonselective, nonchemical method of weed control. It has been more effective against broadleaf weeds than grasses. Experiments were conducted with a conveyor bench burner apparatus to evaluate flaming to kill broadleaf and grass seedlings at the 0- to 2- and 2- to 4-leaf stages. Most 0- to 2-leaf green foxtail seedlings were killed when flamed at 2, 4, and 6 km/h conveyor speed. A few plants survived when flamed at 8 km/h. Green foxtail seedlings at the 2- to 4-leaf stage were more tolerant to flaming than 0- to 2-leaf green foxtail, and substantial numbers of plants survived at all flaming speeds except 2 km/h. Barnyardgrass was more tolerant to flaming than green foxtail, and many 0- to 2- and 2- to 4-leaf seedlings survived after flaming. However, fresh weight of the live plants at 14 d after treatment was reduced. Some large crabgrass plants survived flaming at both growth stages. Flaming at 2 km/h reduced seedling number and fresh weight, but there was significant regrowth. Common ragweed was more susceptible to flaming at the 2- to 4-leaf stage than at the 0- to 2-leaf stage. Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters were susceptible to flaming at both 0- to 2- and 2- to 4-leaf stages.

Type
Weed-Management — Techniques
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ascard, J. 1994. Dose-response models for flame weeding in relation to plant size and density. Weed Res. 34:337385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. 1995a. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res. 35:397411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. 1995b. Thermal weed control by flaming: biological and technical aspects. Alnarp, Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural Engineering. Ph.D Dissertation. 165.Google Scholar
Ascard, J. 1997. Flame weeding: effects of fuel pressure and tandem burners. Weed Res. 37:7786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. 1998. Comparison of flaming and infrared radiation techniques for thermal weed control. Weed Res. 38:6976.Google Scholar
Ascard, J. 1999. Flame weeding: effects of burner angle on weed control and temperature patterns. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 48:248254.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. 2004. Flame weeding. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. http://www.organicagcentre.ca/ResearchDatabase/ext_thermal_weed.html. Accessed: October 10, 2003.Google Scholar
Diver, S. 2002. Flame weeding for vegetable crops. ATTRA bulletin. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/flameweedveg.pdf. Accessed: October 10, 2003.Google Scholar
Heiniger, R. W. 1999. Controlling weeds in organic crops with flame weeders. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Information Bulletin No. 6 1719.Google Scholar
Mojžiš, M. 2002. Energetic requirements of flame weed control. Res. Agric. Eng. 48:9497.Google Scholar
Rahkonen, J. and Jokela, H. 2003. Infrared radiometry for measuring plant leaf temperature during thermal weed control treatment. Biosyst. Eng. 86:257266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar