Skip to main content Accessibility help

Weed Response to Flame Weeding at Different Developmental Stages

  • Evan C. Sivesind (a1), Maryse L. Leblanc (a2), Daniel C. Cloutier (a3), Philippe Seguin (a1) and Katrine A. Stewart (a1)...


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.


Corresponding author

Corresponding author's E-mail:


Hide All
Ascard, J. 1994. Dose-response models for flame weeding in relation to plant size and density. Weed Res 34:377385.
Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res 35:397411.
Ascard, J. 1997. Flame weeding: effects of fuel pressure and tandem burners. Weed Res 37:7786.
Ascard, J. 1998. Comparison of flaming and infrared radiation techniques for thermal weed control. Weed Res 38:6976.
Ascard, J. and Fogelberg, F. 2008. Mechanical intra-row weed control in direct-sown and transplanted bulb onions. Biol. Agric. Hortic 25:235251.
Ascard, J., Hatcher, P. E., Melander, B., and Upadhyaya, M. K. 2007. Thermal weed control. Pages 155175. In Upadhyaya, M. K. and Blackshaw, R. E. Non-Chemical Weed Management. Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford/Cambridge: Cabi.
Bond, W. and Grundy, A. C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383405.
Cisneros, J. J. and Zandstra, B. H. 2008. Flame weeding effects on several weed species. Weed Technol 22:290295.
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 16:114.
Mojžiš, M. 2002. Energetic requirements of flame weed control. Res. Agric. Eng 48:9497.
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 2955. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Walz, E. 1999. Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey. Santa Cruz, CA: Organic Farming Research Foundation. 126.
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 26:134144.


Weed Response to Flame Weeding at Different Developmental Stages

  • Evan C. Sivesind (a1), Maryse L. Leblanc (a2), Daniel C. Cloutier (a3), Philippe Seguin (a1) and Katrine A. Stewart (a1)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed