https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2021.1167
Hot foam and hot water for weed control: A comparison
Submitted: 5 March 2021
Accepted: 29 June 2021
Published: 30 September 2021
Accepted: 29 June 2021
Abstract Views: 2112
PDF: 695
HTML: 57
HTML: 57
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Thermal weed control plays an important role in managing weeds in synthetic herbicide-free systems, particularly in organic agriculture and in urban areas where synthetic herbicides are prohibited. This study compares the impact on weed control of increased doses of hot water and hot foam (i.e. 0, 0.67, 1.67, 3.33, 5.00, 6.67 and 8.33 kg m–2). The doses were applied using the same machine. The temperatures, weed control effectiveness, weed regrowth after the death of the aboveground vegetative weed tissues, and weed dry biomass 30 days after the treatments were studied in two experimental fields with a different weed composition (i.e. Site I and Site II). The results showed that difficult weeds to control, such as Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. and Taraxacum officinale Weber, like all the other species in the initial weed populations in the two experiments, died after lower doses of hot foam compared to hot water. Adding foam to hot water made it possible to lower the required dose of water by at least 2.5-fold compared to hot water used alone. By insulating the weeds, the foam led to higher peak temperatures and slower temperature decay, thus determining an effective weed control with lower doses compared to hot water. Starting from 11 days and 16 days after treatments (for Site I and Site II, respectively), there were no statistically significant differences in weed regrowth between hot foam and hot water at all the doses applied. There were no differences between the dry biomass of weeds collected 30 days after treatments when the same doses of hot foam and hot water were used.
Ascard J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res. 35:397-411.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1995.tb01636.x
Cederlund H., Börjesson E. 2016. Hot foam for weed control - Do alkyl polyglucoside surfactants used as foaming agents affect the mobility of organic contaminants in soil? J. Hazard. Mater. 314:312-317.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.04.061
Daar S. 1994. New technology harnesses hot water to kill weeds. IPM Practioner 16:1-5.
De Cauwer B., Bogaert S., Claerhout S., Bulcke R., Reheul D. 2014. Efficacy and reduced fuel use for hot water weed control on pavements. Weed Res. 55:195-205.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12132
De Cauwer B., De Keyser A., Biesemans N., Claerhout S., Reheul D. 2016. Impact of wetting agents, time of day and periodic energy dosing strategy on the efficacy of hot water for weed control. Weed Res. 56:323-34.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12212
Finney D.J. 1978. Statistical method in biological assay. Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd., London, UK.
Hansson D., Ascard J. 2002. Influence of development stage and time of assessment on hot water weed control. Weed Res. 42:307-16.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2002.00290.x
Hansson D., Matsson J.E. 2002. Effect of drop size, water flow, wetting agent and water temperature on hot-water weed control. Crop Prot. 21:773-81.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00037-6
Hess M., Barralis G., Bleiholder H., Buhr L., Eggers T.H., Hack H., Stauss R. 1997. Use of the extended BBCH scale - general for the description of the growth stages of mono- and dicotyledonous weed species. Weed Res. 37:433-41.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.1997.d01-70.x
IMAGING Crop Response Analyser. Ver. 0.4. 2018. Available from: http://imaging-crops.dk Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Kempenaar C., Spijker J.H. 2004. Weed control on hard surfaces in the Netherlands. Pest management. Science 60:595-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.863
Kup F, Saglam R. 2014. Weed destruction in cotton fields using hot foam method and its comparison to certain other methods. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 9:301-7.
Kurfess W., Kleisinger S. 2000. Effect of hot water on weeds. Proceedings of the 20th German Conference on weed biology and weed control. Stuttgart, Hohenheim, Germany, 14-16 March. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrank-heiten, Pflanzenkrank 17:473-477.
Kuznetsova A., Brockhoff P.B., Christensen R.H.B. 2016. lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-32. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Levitt J. 1980. Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Volume II. Water, radiation, salt, and other stresses. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 607.
Martelloni L., Fontanelli M., Frasconi C., Raffaelli M., Peruzzi A. 2016. Cross-flaming application for intra-row weed control in maize. Appl. Eng. Agric. 32:569-78.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.32.11114
Martelloni L., Frasconi C., Sportelli M., Fontanelli M., Raffaelli M., Peruzzi A. 2019. The use of different hot foam doses for weed Control. Agronomy 9:490.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090490
Martelloni L., Frasconi C., Sportelli M., Fontanelli M., Raffaelli M., Peruzzi A. 2020. Flaming, glyphosate, hot foam and nonanoic acid for weed control: a comparison. Agronomy 10:129.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010129
Matthews G.A. 2000. Pesticide application methods. 3rd Edition. Blackwell Science, London, UK.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470760130
Melander B, Holst N., Grundy AC., Kempenaard C., Riemens M.M., Verschwele A., Hansson, D. 2009. Weed occurrence on pavements in five North European towns. Weed Res. 49:516-25.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00713.x
Melander B., Liebman M., Davis A.S., Gallandt E.R., Bàrberi P., Moonen A.C., Rasmussen J., van der Weide R., Vidotto F. 2017. Non-chemical weed management. Thermal weed control. In Hatcher, P.E. and Froud Williams, R.J. (Eds.), Weed research: expanding horizons. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp. 259-264.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119380702.ch9
Nesbit M., Fergusson M., Colsa A., Ohlendorf J., Hayes C., Paquel K., Schweitzer J.P. 2016. Comparative study on the differences between the EU and US legislation on emissions in the automotive sector. European Parliament: Brussel, Belgium. Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/587331/IPOL_STU(2016)587331_EN.pdf
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2006. Current approaches in the statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data: A guidance to application - annexes. OECD, Paris, pp. 80.
PCE group. 2019. PCE-T390 digital thermometer. Available from: https://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/digital-thermometer-PCE-T390.html Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Peerzada A.M., Chauhan B.S. 2018. Chapter 2. Thermal weed control: history, mechanisms, and impacts. In Jabran K., Chauhan B.S. (Eds.), Non-chemical weed control. Elsevier, London, UK, pp. 9-31.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809881-3.00002-4
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2016. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Raffaelli M., Martelloni L., Frasconi C., Fontanelli M., Peruzzi A. 2013. Development of machines for flaming weed control on hard surfaces. Appl. Eng. Agric. 29:663-73.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/aea.29.10143
Rajamannan A.H.J. 1996. Method of using hot air foam to kill vegetation and pests. U.S. Patent No. 5,575,111,19 November.
Rask A.M., Larsen S.U., Andreasen C., Kristoffersen P. 2013. Determining treatment frequency for controlling weeds on traffic islands using chemical and non-chemical weed control. Weed Res. 53:249-58.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12019
Rasmussen J., Norremark M., Bibby B.M. 2007. Assessment of leaf cover and crop soil cover in weed harrowing research using digital images. Weed Res. 47:299-310.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00565.x
Ritz C., Baty F., Streibig J.C., Gerhard D. 2015. Dose-response analysis using R. PLoS One 10:e0146021.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146021
Seber G.A.F., Wild C.J., 1989. Nonlinear regression. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, pp 330.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471725315
Vermeulen G.D., Verwijs B.R., Kempenaar C. 2006. Effectiveness of weed control methods on pavement. Plant Research International. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Weedingtech. 2019a. Foamstream M1200. Available from: https://www.weedingtech.com/product/foamstream-m1200/ Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Weedingtech. 2019b. Our Technology. Available from: https://www.weedingtech.com/why-foamstream/our-technology/ Accessed: 17 July 2019.
Wei D., Liping C., Zhijun M., Guangwei W., Ruirui Z. 2010. Review of non-chemical weed management for green agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 3:52-60.
Wickham H. 2009. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis, 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA.
How to Cite
Martelloni, L., Frasconi, C., Sportelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Raffaelli, M. and Peruzzi, A. (2021) “Hot foam and hot water for weed control: A comparison”, Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 52(3). doi: 10.4081/jae.2021.1167.
Copyright (c) 2021 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.