Thermal Weed Control: History, Mechanisms, and Impacts

Peerzada, Arslan Masood; Chauhan, Bhagirath Singh

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809881-3.00002-4

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 128 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The green pigments contained in the damaged weeds took a range from one to three days to turn brown, with a higher number of days at lower foam doses (Tables 4 and 5). This delay in the desiccation is typical of all thermal weed control applications, such as steam, hot water and flaming, because the heat melts the membrane cuticle of the plant leaves and breaks down the plant cell structures, so the plant is unable to retain moisture and dehydrates within a few hours or days [7]. A desiccation that requires a couple of days is consistent with the range of time observed for desiccation from hot foam.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…in order to destroy cell structures and cause the denaturation of proteins [1,2]. Several factors influence the heat injury of the plants, including temperature, energy input, exposure period, and weed species [7]. Most thermal methods affect the aboveground portion of the plants, but some weeds (i.e., perennial weeds) may regrow from their belowground components and thus repeated application of thermal control is required [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several factors influence the heat injury of the plants, including temperature, energy input, exposure period, and weed species [7]. Most thermal methods affect the aboveground portion of the plants, but some weeds (i.e., perennial weeds) may regrow from their belowground components and thus repeated application of thermal control is required [7,8]. Flaming, hot water and steam are the primary heat sources for weed control purposes in agriculture and on hard surfaces in urban areas and have the advantage of not inducing plant resistance [1,[3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The foam insulates the weeds from the surrounding air and increases the energy transfer to the plants, thus lowering the dose of hot water required and increasing efficiency [2]. Compared to hot water alone, the addition of foam has the advantages of less water being required, less susceptibility to weather changes, a high application accuracy and speed, more heat transfer time, and a low cost [7,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Use of Different Hot Foam Doses for Weed Control

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermal weed control technology plays an important role in managing weeds in synthetic herbicide-free systems, particularly in organic agriculture. The use of hot foam represents an evolution of the hot water weed control thermal method, modified by the addition of biodegradable foaming agents. The aim of this study was to test the weeding effect of different five hot foam doses, in two sites of different weed composition fields [i.e., Festuca arundinacea (Schreb.), Taraxacum officinale (Weber) and Plantago lanceolata (L.)], by evaluating the devitalisation of weeds, their regrowth, the weed dry biomass at the end of the experiment and the temperature of hot foam as affected by different foam doses. The results showed that the effect of the hot foam doses differed with the different infested weed species experiments. In the Festuca arundinacea (Schreb.) infested field, all doses from 3.33 L m−2 to 8.33 L m−2 led to a 100% weed cover devitalisation and a lower weed dry biomass compared to the dose of 1.67 L m−2, whereas the weed regrowth was similar when all doses were applied. In the Taraxacum officinale (Weber) and Plantago lanceolata (L.) infested fields, doses from 5.00 L m−2 to 8.33 L m−2 in site I and from 3.33 L m−2 to 8.33 L m−2 in site II led to 100% of weed cover devitalisation. The highest doses of 6.67 L m−2 and 8.33 L m−2 led to a slower weed regrowth and a lower weed dry biomass compared to the other doses. The time needed for weeds to again cover 50%, after the 100% devitalisation, was, on average, one month when all doses were applied in the Festuca arundinacea (Schreb.) infested field, whereas in the Taraxacum officinale (Weber) and Plantago lanceolata (L.) fields, this delay was estimated only when doses of 6.67 L m−2 and 8.33 L m−2 were used in site I and a dose of 8.33 L m−2 in site II. Thus, in the Festuca arundinacea (Schreb.) field experiments hot foam doses from 3.33 L m−2 to 8.33 L m−2 were effective in controlling weeds, and the use of the lowest dose (i.e., 3.33 L m−2) is recommended. However, for Taraxacum officinale (Weber) and Plantago lanceolata (L.) the highest doses are recommended (i.e., 6.67 L m−2 and 8.33 L m−2), as these led to 100% weed devitalisation, slower regrowth, and lower weed dry biomass than other doses. A delay in the regrowth of weeds by 30 days can lead to the hypothesis that the future application of hot foam as a desiccant in no-till field bands, before the transplant of high-income vegetable crops, will provide a competitive advantage against weeds.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Use of Different Hot Foam Doses for Weed Control

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When a method of weed control is applied, in addition to its effectiveness, it is important to also evaluate the weed regrowth after the above-ground tissues of weeds have died [18]. In fact, most thermal methods affect the above-ground portion of the plants, however, some weeds (i.e., perennial weeds) may regrow from their below-ground components and thus a repeated application of the thermal control is required [3,19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flaming, Glyphosate, Hot Foam and Nonanoic Acid for Weed Control: A Comparison

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic herbicides are commonly used in weed management, however, 70 years of use has led to weed resistance and environmental concerns. These problems have led scientists to consider alternative methods of weed management in order to reduce the inputs and impacts of synthetic herbicides. The aim of this experiment was to test the level of weed control using four weeding methods: glyphosate applied at an ultra-low volume, the organic herbicide nonanoic acid, flaming, and hot foam. The results showed that weed control was effective only when flaming and hot foam were applied (99% and 100% weed control, respectively). Nonanoic acid at a dose of 11 kg a.i. ha−1 diluted in 400 L of water did not control developed plants of Cyperus esculentus (L.), Convolvulus arvensis (L.) and Poa annua (L.). Glyphosate at a dose of 1080 g a.i. ha−1 (pure product) only controlled P. annua (L.), but had no effect on C. esculentus (L.) and C. arvensis (L.). After the aboveground tissues of weeds had died, regrowth began earlier after flaming compared to hot foam. There was no regrowth of P. annua (L.) only after using hot foam and glyphosate. Hot foam was generally better at damaging the meristems of the weeds. In one of the two experiment sites, significantly more time was needed after the hot foam to recover 10% and 50% of the ground compared to flaming. The time needed to recover 90% of the ground was on average 26–27 days for flaming and hot foam, which is the time that is assumed to be required before repeating the application. A total of 29 days after the treatments, weeds were smaller after flaming, glyphosate and hot foam compared to nonanoic acid and the control, where they had more time to grow.

show abstract