Guidelines for physical weed control research: flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation

A prerequisite for good research is the use of appropriate methodology. In order to aggregate sound research methodology, this paper presents some tentative guidelines for physical weed control research in general, and flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation in particular. Issues include the adjustment and use of mechanical weeders and other equipment, the recording of impact factors that affect weeding performance, methods to assess effectiveness, the layout of treatment plots, and the conceptual models underlying the experimental designs (e.g. factorial comparison, dose response). First of all, the research aims need to be clearly defined, an appropriate experimental design produced and statistical methods chosen accordingly. Suggestions on how to do this are given. For assessments, quantitative measures would be ideal, but as they require more resources, visual classification may in some cases be more feasible. The timing of assessment affects the results and their interpretation. When describing the weeds and crops, one should list the crops and the most abundantly present weed species involved, giving their density and growth stages at the time of treatment. The location of the experimental field, soil type, soil moisture and amount of fertilization should be given, as well as weather conditions at the time of treatment. The researcher should describe the weed control equipment and adjustments accurately, preferably according to the prevailing practice within the discipline. Things to record are e.g. gas pressure, burner properties, burner cover dimensions and LPG consumption in flame weeding; speed, angle of tines, number of passes and direction in weed harrowing. The authors hope this paper will increase comparability among experiments, help less experienced scientists to prevent mistakes and essential omissions, and foster the advance of knowledge on non-chemical weed management.

[1]  D. Cloutier,et al.  Susceptibility of Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Cranberry Bean) to the Rotary Hoe1 , 2001, Weed Technology.

[2]  Jesper Rasmussen,et al.  Testing harrows for mechanical control of annual weeds in agricultural crops , 1992 .

[3]  D. Cloutier,et al.  Susceptibility of Row-Planted Soybean (Glycine max) to the Rotary Hoe , 2001 .

[4]  J. Ascard,et al.  Mechanical weed control by torsion weeder - a new method to reduce herbicide use in sugar beets , 1998 .

[5]  D.A.G. Kurstjens.  Mechanisms of selective mechanical weed control by harrowing , 2002 .

[6]  A. Bertram,et al.  MEASUREMENT OF HEAT TRANSFER IN THERMAL WEED CONTROL , 1994 .

[7]  Martin Kent,et al.  Vegetation Description and Analysis , 1993 .

[8]  J. Ascard,et al.  Influence of developmental stage and time of assessment on hot water weed control , 2002 .

[9]  Martin J. Kropff,et al.  Method for predicting selective uprooting by mechanical weeders from plant anchorage forces , 2004, Weed Science.

[10]  J. Ascard,et al.  Flame weeding: effects of fuel pressure and tandem burners , 1996 .

[11]  Bo Melander,et al.  Selectivity of weed harrowing in lupin , 2004 .

[12]  Ascard.  Comparison of flaming and infrared radiation techniques for thermal weed control , 1998 .

[13]  J. Ascard,et al.  Dose–response models for flame weeding in relation to plant size and density , 1994 .

[14]  J. Ascard,et al.  Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. , 1995 .

[15]  A. P. Dedousis,et al.  Development of high density energy techniques in robotic weeding. , 2005 .

[16]  A. Bohrnsen,et al.  Several years results about mechanical weeding in cereals , 1994 .

[17]  Michele Raffaelli,et al.  Experimental tests of selective flame weeding for different spring summer crops in Central Italy. , 1999 .

[18]  Andrea Peruzzi,et al.  Physical weed control in organic carrot in the Fucino Valley (Italy) , 2003 .

[19]  C. R. Swanson,et al.  Techniques and Equipment Used in Evaluating Chemicals for Their Herbicidal Properties , 1952 .

[20]  J. H. Spijker,et al.  Gif van de straat; reductieprogramma chemische onkruidbestrijding op verhardingen , 1997 .

[21]  J. Rasmussen,et al.  Selectivity - an important parameter on establishing the optimum harrowing technique for weed control in growing cereals. , 1990 .

[22]  G. G. Pohlman.  Soil Science Society of America , 1940 .

[23]  C. J. Willard.  Rating Scales for Weed Control Experiments , 1958 .

[24]  Gilles D. Leroux,et al.  Sampling Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Populations , 1992, Weed Science.

[25]  Torbjörn Rydberg,et al.  Weed Harrowing—the Influence of Driving Speed and Driving Direction on Degree of Soil Covering and the Growth of Weed and Crop Plants , 1994 .

[26]  L. C. Burrill,et al.  Field manual for weed control research. , 1976 .

[27]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Development of Optimized Thermal Weeders by Mathematical Modelling , 1997 .

[28]  Jordi Recasens Guinjuan,et al.  Métodos alternativos de represión de las malas hierbas: escardadores mecánicos y técnicas de evaluación , 1995 .

[29]  Jesper Rasmussen,et al.  A model for prediction of yield response in weed harrowing , 1991 .

[30]  Andrea Peruzzi,et al.  OPTIONS FOR MECHANICAL WEED CONTROL IN STRING BEAN , 2002 .

[31]  Andreas Bertram.  Geräte- und verfahrenstechnische Optimierung der thermischen Unkrautbekämpfung , 1996 .

[32]  D. Goense,et al.  Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils , 2000 .

[33]  Jesper Rasmussen,et al.  Selective Weed Harrowing in Cereals , 1995 .

[34]  J. Rasmussen,et al.  Yield response models for mechanical weed control by harrowing at early crop growth stages in peas (Pisum sativum L.) , 1993 .

[35]  Petri Vanhala.  Relationship between the timing of seedbed preparation and the efficacy of pre-emergence flaming , 2002 .