Physiological Effects of Ultra-High Temperatures on Corn

Ellwanger, T. C.; Bingham, S. W.; Chappell, W. E.

doi:10.1017/s0043174500027028

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Flaming kills weeds that have emerged prior to the crop, mainly by rupturing the cell membranes and the indirect effect of subsequent desiccation (Ellwanger et al. , 1973a,b; Levitt, 1980; Bertram, 1994).…”

Section: Thermal Weeding and Burning In Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non‐chemical weed management strategies

Hatcher

Melander²

2003

Weed Research

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical, cultural and biological methods for weed control have developed largely independently and are often concerned with weed control in different systems: physical and cultural control in annual crops and biocontrol in extensive grasslands. We discuss the strengths and limitations of four physical and cultural methods for weed control: mechanical, thermal, cutting, and intercropping, and the advantages and disadvantages of combining biological control with them. These physical and cultural control methods may increase soil nitrogen levels and alter microclimate at soil level; this may be of benefit to biocontrol agents, although physical disturbance to the soil and plant damage may be detrimental. Some weeds escape control by these methods; we suggest that these weeds may be controlled by biocontrol agents. It will be easiest to combine biological control with fire and cutting in grasslands; within arable systems it would be most promising to combine biological control (especially using seed predators and foliar pathogens) with cover-cropping, and mechanical weeding combined with foliar bacterial and possibly foliar fungal pathogens. We stress the need to consider the timing of application of combined control methods in order to cause least damage to the biocontrol agent, along with maximum damage to the weed and to consider the wider implications of these different weed control methods.

show abstract

Section: Thermal Weeding and Burning In Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non‐chemical weed management strategies

Hatcher

Melander²

2003

Weed Research

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the research involved with heat to control weeds has been via four general methods: controlled burning, flaming of weeds, hot water treatment and steam application. Heat injury can cause denaturation/aggregation of cellular proteins and protoplast expansion/rupture, resulting in plant tissue desiccation, potentially leading to death [1] [2]. Depending on the heat treatment exposure time, protein denaturation in plant tissues may be initiated at 45˚C [3] [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, cellular structural changes were more pronounced when the cellular temperature changed more rapidly (e.g., flaming) compared to gradual and lower temperature changes (e.g., hot-water treatment) [5]. Since many of these treatments only kill plant shoots, the affected plants (especially perennial weeds) may regenerate, making repeated treatments necessary [1] [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hot Water Treatment Enhances the Bioherbicidal Efficacy of a Fungus

Boyette¹,

Hoagland²,

Stetina³

2018

AJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) plants (>30 cm tall) sprayed with hot water (45˚C-95˚C), followed by spray applications of fungal spores of Colletotrichum truncatum (CT) at 1.0 × 10 7 spores/ml −1 and 22˚C-25˚C, suspended either in: 0.2% Silwet L-77 surfactant (SW); unrefined corn oil (CO)/distilled water (1:1, v:v); or 0.2% SW in CO were controlled by 80%-95%, 12 days after treatment (DAT) under greenhouse conditions. These treatments also reduced dry weight accumulation of this weed. Plants treated with hot water without CT were also injured at temperatures ≥35˚C (5% mortality), and 60% mortality at 95˚C. Artificial dew treatments (25˚C, 12 h), imposed on plants after the treatment protocols above, had little or no effect on weed mortality or dry weight reduction compared to treated plants without dew. Under field conditions, 85% control of hemp sesbania was achieved 12-15 DAT when a pre-treatment with hot water (65˚C) was followed immediately with a CT application at the spore concentration as described above. Plants in field tests treated with CT without a hot water treatment were visually unaffected, with no mortality or plant biomass reductions recorded 15 DAT. These results suggest that use of hot water may be an important tool for improving the infectivity and bioherbicidal potential of some plant pathogens.

show abstract

“…lame weeding is used to control weeds with heat generated by a flame. Plants are exposed to a flame generating ultra-high temperatures that produce cellular death due to the initial thermal disruption of the cellular membranes rapidly followed by dehydration of the affected tissue (Ellwanger et al, 1973). Tissue dehydration subsequent to thermal membrane disruption is an important factor in cell death (Ellwanger et al, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

LPG Burners for Weed Control

2015

Appl. Eng. Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the results of a study carried out on three prototypes of open flame burners for thermal weed control. Their performance is reported in terms of flame temperature and length, in order to ascertain the best ratio between primary and secondary air, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) consumption. To find the best ratio between primary and secondary air, the length and temperature of the flame were recorded for each of the three burners, examined by varying the inlet sections of the primary air and secondary air. The data on temperature and the flame length of each burner were processed using multiple regression analysis. The LPG consumption was determined with one of the burners using 10 different pressures in combination with three nozzles. The data obtained were subjected to non-linear regression using two gaseous outflow models. The various combinations of primary and secondary air inlet sections affected the values of the flame length and temperature. In general, the best combinations of primary and secondary air inlet for flame temperature did not correspond to those for flame length. However, this experiment showed that the inlet of secondary air is critical for the performance of this type of burner, in terms of flame temperature. The fuel consumption trial showed that the model proposed for the gaseous outflow is suitable for describing the values of LPG consumption collected during the trial.

show abstract

Physiological Effects of Ultra-High Temperatures on Corn

Cited by 22 publications

References 7 publications

Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non‐chemical weed management strategies

Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non‐chemical weed management strategies

Hot Water Treatment Enhances the Bioherbicidal Efficacy of a Fungus

LPG Burners for Weed Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About