Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T06:42:19.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Response to Flame Weeding at Different Developmental Stages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Evan C. Sivesind ,
Maryse L. Leblanc ,
Daniel C. Cloutier ,
Philippe Seguin  and
Katrine A. Stewart
Evan C. Sivesind*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9
Maryse L. Leblanc
Affiliation:
Insitut de recherche et de développement en agroenvironment, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada J2S 7B8
Daniel C. Cloutier
Affiliation:
Institut de malherbologie, Ste.-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3R9
Philippe Seguin
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9
Katrine A. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: evan.sivesind@mail.mcgill.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Flame weeding is often used for weed control in organic production and other situations where use of herbicides is prohibited or undesirable. Response to cross-flaming was evaluated on five common weed species: common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, shepherd's-purse, barnyardgrass, and yellow foxtail. Dose-response curves were generated according to species and growth stage. Dicot species were more effectively controlled than monocot species. Common lambsquarters was susceptible to flame treatment with doses required for 95% control (LD95) ranging from 0.9 to 3.3 kg/km with increasing maturity stage. Comparable levels of control in redroot pigweed required higher doses than common lambsquarters, but adequate control was still achieved. Flaming effectively controlled shepherd's-purse at the cotyledon stage (LD95 = 1.2 kg/km). However, the LD95 for weeds with two to five leaves increased to 2.5 kg/km, likely due to the rosette stage of growth, which allowed treated weeds to avoid thermal injury. Control of barnyardgrass and yellow foxtail was poor, with weed survival > 50% for all maturity stages and flaming doses tested. Flame weeding can be an effective and labor-saving weed control method, the extent of which is partially dependent on the weed flora present. Knowledge of the local weed flora and their susceptibility to flame weeding is vital for the effective use of this method.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREshepherd's-purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. CAPBPyellow foxtail, Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roemer and J.A. Schultes SETLUDose-responseflaminggrowth stageorganic agricultureweed controlweed management
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 438 - 443
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 34:377–385.Google Scholar
Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res 35:397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. 1997. Flame weeding: effects of fuel pressure and tandem burners. Weed Res 37:77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. 1998. Comparison of flaming and infrared radiation techniques for thermal weed control. Weed Res 38:69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. and Fogelberg, F. 2008. Mechanical intra-row weed control in direct-sown and transplanted bulb onions. Biol. Agric. Hortic 25:235–251.Google Scholar
Ascard, J., Hatcher, P. E., Melander, B., and Upadhyaya, M. K. 2007. Thermal weed control. Pages 155–175. In Upadhyaya, M. K. and Blackshaw, R. E. Non-Chemical Weed Management. Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford/Cambridge: Cabi.Google Scholar
Bond, W. and Grundy, A. C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cisneros, J. J. and Zandstra, B. H. 2008. Flame weeding effects on several weed species. Weed Technol 22:290–295.Google Scholar
Melander, B. 1998. Interactions between soil cultivation in darkness, flaming and brush weeding when used for in-row weed control in vegetables. Biol. Agric. Hortic 16:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mojžiš, M. 2002. Energetic requirements of flame weed control. Res. Agric. Eng 48:94–97.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 29–55. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Walz, E. 1999. Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey. Santa Cruz, CA: Organic Farming Research Foundation. 126.Google Scholar
Wszelaki, A. L., Doohan, D. J., and Alexandrou, A. 2007. Weed control and crop quality in cabbage (Brassica oleracea (capitata group)) and tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum) using a propane flamer. Crop Sci 26:134–144.Google Scholar