Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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)...
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: evan.sivesind@mail.mcgill.ca.
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. Ascard 1994. Dose-response models for flame weeding in relation to plant size and density. Weed Res 34:377385.

J. Ascard 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res 35:397411.

J. Ascard 1997. Flame weeding: effects of fuel pressure and tandem burners. Weed Res 37:7786.

J. Ascard 1998. Comparison of flaming and infrared radiation techniques for thermal weed control. Weed Res 38:6976.

J. Ascard and F. Fogelberg 2008. Mechanical intra-row weed control in direct-sown and transplanted bulb onions. Biol. Agric. Hortic 25:235251.

J. Ascard , P. E. Hatcher , B. Melander , and M. K. Upadhyaya 2007. Thermal weed control. Pages 155175. In M. K. Upadhyaya and R. E. Blackshaw Non-Chemical Weed Management. Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford/Cambridge: Cabi.

W. Bond and A. C. Grundy 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383405.

J. J. Cisneros and B. H. Zandstra 2008. Flame weeding effects on several weed species. Weed Technol 22:290295.

B. Melander 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.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Technology
  • ISSN: 0890-037X
  • EISSN: 1550-2740
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-technology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 34 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 22nd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.