A review of non‐chemical weed control on hard surfaces

Rask, A M; Kristoffersen, Palle

doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00579.x

Cited by 81 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among these tactics, the use of steaming promises to be useful because it efficiently transfers heat (Rask and Kristoffersen 2007) and reduces fire risk, especially in areas where dry plant residue is present (Hansson and Ascard 2002). However, there is limited information about the factors that determine the effectiveness of steaming as a POST weed control tactic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific Differences in Weed Susceptibility to Steam Injury

León

Ferreira

2008

Weed technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermal weed control methods have been incorporated into weed control programs in organic and conventional production systems. Flaming is commonly used, but steaming has been proposed to increase efficiency of heat transfer to weeds and reduce the risk of fire. The objective of this research was to measure injury to leaves of plant species that differ in leaf morphology and to measure injury to plants at different stages of plant development. The study was conducted in a glasshouse and plants were exposed to steaming at 400 C for 0.36 s—equivalent to a steaming speed of 2 km/h. Overall, leaf thickness was the best morphological characteristic to predict injury (r2 = 0.51), with greater thickness resulting in less injury. For broadleaf species only, species with wider leaves were injured more than species with narrower leaves (r2 = 0.64). Injury was greatest when plants had fewer than six true leaves and when their shoots were less than 10 cm long. There was a wide range of injury across species, and the grass species bermudagrass and perennial ryegrass were injured (68 to 81%) more than other species such as common purslane and English daisy (23 to 34%). Biomass of all species tested was reduced by approximately 40%, indicating that leaf injury was not the sole effect of steaming on plant growth. These results indicated that considering both visual estimates of injury and morphological characteristics is important to properly assess thermal weed control effectiveness.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific Differences in Weed Susceptibility to Steam Injury

León

Ferreira

2008

Weed technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, 2001; Reichel, 2003; Kristoffersen et al. , 2004; Rask & Kristoffersen, 2007). Non‐chemical treatments mainly affect the above‐ground plant parts, whereas systemic herbicides, such as glyphosate, kill the entire plant and therefore only require one or two treatments per year (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repeated use of any weed control method is likely to cause a shift in the weed flora to resistant or more tolerant species. Thermal methods often favour the growth of grasses and dicotyledonous species with growth meristems close to the ground (Parish, 1989; Ascard, 1995, 1998; Hansson, 2002; Rask & Kristoffersen, 2007). In this study, the weed flora was dominated by well‐established grasses and this may reduce the effectiveness of the thermal treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2001; Hansson, 2002; Augustin, 2003b). Therefore, the need for alternative control methods has increased substantially and new equipment for hard‐surface weed control has been developed recently (Hansson, 2002; Tvedt & Kristoffersen, 2002; Kempenaar & Spijker, 2004; Rask & Kristoffersen, 2007). Several studies have been conducted to test and improve thermal and mechanical equipment, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non‐chemical weed control on traffic islands: a comparison of the efficacy of five weed control techniques

2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The efficacy of five non‐chemical weed control methods for reducing weed cover on traffic islands was investigated in the growing season of 2004. Three trial sites were divided into six treatment areas which were treated with either flame, steam, hot air, hot water, brushes or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular intervals throughout the growing season. The percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 × 75 cm quadratic frame with 100 squares. In the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas all treatments reduced weed cover. Hot water was the most effective method, although not significantly better than hot air or steam. Hot air treatment was more effective than brushing, whereas hot water was more effective than both flaming and brushing. The doses that were used were relatively high (150–355 kg ha−1), partly because of the irregular shape of the traffic islands and the treatment intervals were quite short in comparison with those in similar studies. However, the treatments could keep down the weeds only to a certain extent. The present knowledge of the efficacy of various weed control methods, as well as an increase in our knowledge of adequate treatment intervals, supports an optimisation of hard‐surface weed control. Data and experience gained from these trials were used to develop further calibrated application studies.

show abstract

“…A literature study on non-chemical weed control on hard surfaces (Rask & Kristoffersen, 2007) revealed a need of proper definition of efficiency of the weed control methods. Different methods to measure the effect of non-chemical treatments may lead to different results (Hansson, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Image analysis as a non-destructive method to assess regrowth of weeds after repeated flame weeding

Rask

Kristoffersen

Andreasen³

2013

Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficient non-chemical weed control like flame weeding often requires repeated treatments. In weed control experiments the effect of each treatment may be estimated by removing and weighing the remaining weed biomass after the treatment, but the method influences the weed plants ability to regrow, and therefore it may influence the long-term effect of repeated treatments. Visual assessment of weed cover or image analysis do not affect the remaining parts of the weed plants after treatment, but the methods may have other disadvantages. In order to evaluate and compare three methods we measured changes in vegetation cover of perennial ryegrass after flaming by (1) a simple image analysis programme counting green pixels, (2) visual assessment of images and (3) by taking biomass samples. Plants were flame treated with eight different dosages (0, 20, 30, 35, 45, 60, 90 and 180 kg propane ha (1 ) and with various treatment frequency (2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 yearly treatments). Image analysis and visual assessment of images were easy methods to measure vegetation cover. The experiments showed that increasing dosages and frequent treatments resulted in increasing reduction of plant weight and vegetation cover. However, there were significant differences in the estimated effective doses (e.g., ED50 and ED 90 values) depending on assessment method and treatment frequency. One reason could be that image analysis and visual assessment did not affect the remaining weed parts after treatment and therefore gave a more realistic picture of the long-term effect of repeated treatments. Image analysis was most useful for assessing the effect of repeated treatments when weed cover was relatively low (below 40%) and when plots contained relatively much withered plant material. However, when weed cover is close to 100%, dry weight measurements reflected the effect of the treatment better.

show abstract

A review of non‐chemical weed control on hard surfaces

Cited by 81 publications

References 37 publications

Interspecific Differences in Weed Susceptibility to Steam Injury

Interspecific Differences in Weed Susceptibility to Steam Injury

Non‐chemical weed control on traffic islands: a comparison of the efficacy of five weed control techniques

Image analysis as a non-destructive method to assess regrowth of weeds after repeated flame weeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About