Using Flaming as an Alternative Method to Vine Suckering

Martelloni, Luisa; Raffaelli, Michele; Frasconi, Christian; Fontanelli, Marco; Peruzzi, Andrea; D’Onofrio, Claudio

doi:10.3390/agronomy9030147

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wood pellet consumption recorded during the field tests (50 to 65 kg/ha approx.) can be compared with fossil fuel (propane) consumption (20 to 24 kg/ha) reported by various sources [8,19]. These figures imply a fuel cost of 17.5 to 22.8 €/ha for the wood pellet (at 0.35 €/kg), versus 46.0 to 55.2 €/ha for propane (at 2.3 €/kg).…”

Section: Biomass Flaming: Still Open Issues and Further Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This has stimulated the development of non-chemical, alternative methods for weed control, such as flaming, steaming, and hot-foam machines [6][7][8][9][10]. While a thorough description would be outside the scope of the present work, it may be sufficient to say that all these methods require a large energy consumption from typically fossil fuels such as LPG or diesel oil.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Field Testing of a Biomass-Fueled Flamer for In-Row Weed Control in the Vineyard

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern about the adverse effects of chemicals on the environment and on human health, and increasing restrictions of herbicide use, have led to a renewed interest in non-chemical weed control, particularly under the row of vineyards. A new, biomass-fueled (wood pellet), flaming prototype (CS Thermos, San Vendemiano, TV) was tested in the vineyard during Spring–Summer 2018, and compared with tillage (disc cultivator, weeder blade, and finger blade) and mowing (in-row, vine-skipping mower). Efficacy (in % of weed biomass removed or killed) and re-growth between two applications (in g dry biomass/m2) were assessed for each treatment at two sampling locations (between the vines, and around the vines). Flaming resulted in greater efficacy of weed removal in comparison to tillage (blade weeder) and mowing, both between the vines (64%–75% versus 44%–68%, and 40%–68%, respectively) and around the vines (56%–78%, 39%–46%, and 37%–48%, respectively). However, five applications of tillage significantly reduced total weed growth until 27 July (by 26%) between vines in comparison to three applications of flaming, while no significant differences were found around vines. Such findings suggest that more frequent applications of flaming may be needed to give average weed control comparable to that of tillage, while improving it close to the vine trunks. Advantages and disadvantages of the prototype versus tillage and mowing, and versus conventional, LPG-fueled flamers are discussed in the paper.

show abstract

Section: Biomass Flaming: Still Open Issues and Further Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Testing of a Biomass-Fueled Flamer for In-Row Weed Control in the Vineyard

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Flaming was applied manually with a prototype of a back-pack flaming machine developed at the University of Pisa [13] (Figure 1a). The dose was 150 kg ha −1 of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) based on previous experiments where this dose was found to be effective in controlling developed weeds [14,15]. The burner was 0.3 m wide and operated at 6 cm above the ground.…”

Section: Experimental Set Up Design and Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…to destroy cell structures, and leads to the denaturation of proteins [9,11,12]. Flaming is the primary heat source for weed control in agriculture and on hard surfaces in urban areas [9,[13][14][15][16]. Hot foam is an evolution of the hot water weed control method, modified by the addition of biodegradable foaming agents, and was first patented in 1995 [12,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

Self Cite

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

“…Heat treatment can be a potential alternative tool for weed control in different crops produced organically, such as corn, soybean, and grapevine (Stepanovic et al, 2015;Martelloni et al, 2019). Some crops require more than one heat application for effective control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heat-Applicator Machine for Weed Control

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pesticide environmental risks and increased weed resistance have encouraged studies for alternatives to herbicides. Among these are weed thermal control methods by controlled heat application machines. Thus, this study aimed to test a prototype of heat-applicator machine as a function of changes in gas pressure, travel speed, and tire traffic effect on plants. Then, three experimental factors were tested: gas pressure (98, 196, and 245 kPa), travel speed (0.56, 0.78, and 1.17 m s −1), and tire traffic effect on plants (with and without traffic). The results showed that tire traffic effect on plants and subsequent heat application had no effect on control rate. Weed control rates reached levels considered satisfactory using a heat application speed of 0.56 m s −1 associated with gas pressures of 245 or 196 kPa, as well as a heat application speed of 0.78 m s −1 associated with a gas pressure of 245 kPa. A total between 60.9 and 84.9 kg ha-1 liquefied petroleum gas was required for weed control of around 80%.

show abstract

Using Flaming as an Alternative Method to Vine Suckering

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Field Testing of a Biomass-Fueled Flamer for In-Row Weed Control in the Vineyard

Field Testing of a Biomass-Fueled Flamer for In-Row Weed Control in the Vineyard

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

Heat-Applicator Machine for Weed Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About