Impact of wetting agents,time of day and periodic energy dosing strategy on the efficacy of hot water for weed control

To further increase the cost‐effectiveness and sustainability of hot water weed control, the further optimisation of hot water efficacy is needed. Therefore, three dose–response experiments were carried out to evaluate the impact of wetting agents (an ethoxylated triglyceride, an esterified rapeseed oil and a liquid linseed oil‐based soap), time of day (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after sunrise) and treatment frequency (1–6 treatments in a 12 week period) on the hot water sensitivity of prevalent weed species (Lolium perenne, Festuca rubra, Taraxacum officinale and Plantago major) on public pavements. Generally, wetting agents did not improve hot water sensitivity. Taraxacum officinale with large planophile leaves showed a higher sensitivity than grasses with an erectophile growth habit. Festuca rubra was more sensitive than L. perenne due to its high leaf dry matter content. The plant species were most sensitive to hot water in the afternoon. This variation in sensitivity during the day was related to the variation in leaf thickness and dry matter content. In general, hot water weed control was highly efficient when conducted four times in a 12 week period at an energy dose of 589 kJ m^?2.     

Efficacy and reduced fuel use for hot water weed control on pavements

Non‐chemical weed control on pavements needs more frequently repeated treatments than the application of glyphosate and often uses large amounts of fuel. To obtain effective hot water control with minimum energy consumption, an in‐depth study of efficacy‐influencing factors was performed. Three dose–response pot experiments were conducted outdoors to investigate the impact of growth stage (39, 60 and 81 day old), water temperature (78, 88 and 98°C), time of the day (2, 7 and 12 h after sunrise) and treatment interval (2, 3, 4 and 6 week intervals) on hot water sensitivity of seven weed species that are hard to control on pavements. Responses to hot water were quantified by weed coverage and total dry biomass. In general, hot water sensitivity was highest for species with large planophile leaves and lowest for grasses with small erectophile leaves. Most species were twofold to sixfold more sensitive to water at 98°C than at 78 and 88°C, particularly when treated at early growth stages. Among treatment intervals, treating at 3‐week intervals was up to twofold more effective and energy efficient than treating at 6‐week intervals. Sensitivity was about twofold lower in the morning than in the afternoon. For effective control of weeds, while using less fuel, it is recommended to apply hot water in the late afternoon, to operate at high water temperature (98°C) and to treat plants as young as possible at 3‐week intervals.     

Effect of air temperature, rain and drought on hot water weed control

The influence of rain and drought before, and air temperature during, weed control with hot water was studied in laboratory experiments on the test weed Sinapis alba (white mustard). The plants were grown in a greenhouse and treated outdoors. There was no difference in weed control effect when S. alba plants at the four‐leaf stage were treated at the air temperatures 7°C and 18^°C. The effective energy dose for a 90% fresh weight reduction was 465 kJ m^?2 for both air temperatures. Weed control of S. alba at the four‐ to six‐leaf stage in rainfall above the rainwater run‐off level increased the required effective energy dose by 20% (i.e. 120 kJ m^?2) compared with dry plants. A short period of drought just before treatment on S. alba at the two‐ to four‐leaf stage increased the plant fresh weight reduction, which was 22% at low energy dose (190 kJ m^?2) and 44% at high energy dose (360 kJ m^?2). Hot water weed control should thus be carried out when the plants are drought stressed and avoided when the plants are wet. The air temperature seems to be of little importance in the range 7–18^°C.     

Observations on the potential of microwaves for weed control

Field tests of a prototype microwave‐based weed killer machine were conducted on Abutilon theophrasti, Panicum miliaceum, lucerne and oilseed rape pure stands. The approach can be considered a thermal weed control method, the microwave radiation causing dielectric heating of plant tissue water that eventually kills the plant. The method could overcome the limitations of other thermal methods, such as fire risk with flaming or the heavy loads required for hot water treatments. Species were effectively controlled by microwave irradiation, but their sensitivity and the evolution of damage symptoms over time differed. Lucerne showed no sigmoidal response and was the least affected by the treatment, while a log‐logistic curve expressed the dose–response relationships of the other species quite well. The estimated microwave dose for a 90% dry weight reduction ranged from 1015 kJ m^?2 in A. theophrasti to 3433 kJ m^?2 in P. miliaceum. Energy cost evaluation indicated that increased efficiency is required for this technique to compete with other thermal methods. Microwave efficiency could be increased by a flux configuration that minimizes soil penetration and maximizes absorption by plants, which, in turn, depends on plant growth form.     

A review of non-chemical weed control on hard surfaces

Weed control research to date has mainly focused on arable land, especially regarding herbicides, but also regarding non‐chemical methods. Some of these experiences can be applied to hard surface areas. However, weeds on hard surface areas cause problems that are different from those on arable land. Additionally, crop tolerance does not need to be considered when choosing an appropriate weed control method on these areas. The aim of this review is to describe current knowledge of weeds and weed control methods on hard surface areas and reveal potential ways of advancement. One of the shortcomings of non‐chemical weed control on hard surfaces thus far, is a lack of proper definition of efficiency of the weed control methods. To obtain effective control, more frequently repeated treatments are required than chemical weed management, thereby increasing the costs of labour and fuel. One way to reduce costs can be by adjusting the level of control to the required visual street quality. Weeds are adapted to the hard surface environment and may be less susceptible to certain control methods. This review indicates that for efficient weed control on hard surfaces there is a need for combining weed control techniques, applying sensors for detecting weeds, adapting the energy dose to type of weed flora and prevention of weeds by improved construction of new surfaces.     

Determining treatment frequency for controlling weeds on traffic islands using chemical and non‐chemical weed control

Many public authorities rely on the use of non‐chemical weed control methods, due to stringent restrictions on herbicide use in urban areas. However, these methods usually require more repeated treatments than chemical weed management, resulting in increased costs of weed management. In order to investigate the efficacy of four non‐chemical weed control methods and glyphosate treatment, experiments were carried out on traffic islands in the growing seasons 2005 and 2006. Three trial sites were each divided into six treatment areas, which were either treated with glyphosate, flame, steam, hot air/flame, hot water or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular, predetermined intervals throughout the growing season in 2004, whereas in 2005 and 2006 how many treatments that were required to keep weed cover below a predetermined acceptance level of 2% were investigated. Percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 cm × 75 cm quadrat divided into 100 squares. On the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas weed cover could be kept below 2% by 2–7 treatments per year, depending on control method. On average, the following numbers of treatments per year were required: glyphosate 2.5, hot water 3, flames 5, hot air/flames 5.5 and steam 5.5 treatments. The results demonstrate that the weed control should be adjusted to the prescribed quality for the traffic islands by regularly assessing the need for weed control. They also show that tailored treatments can reduce the number of required non‐chemical treatments per year.     

Integrating preventive and curative non‐chemical weed control strategies for concrete block pavements

Reduction in herbicide use in non‐agricultural areas is being imposed by a growing number of governments, triggering the development of alternative strategies for weed prevention and control. This study aimed to determine the weed preventive abilities of different paving types, the required treatment frequency of non‐chemical weed control scenarios on these pavements and the associated weed species composition. A test parking area, constructed with four concrete paving types, was sown with a mixture of dominant weed species. Six scenarios with repeated use of a single weed control method (brushing with waste removal, hot air, selective application of hot water and three scenarios with flaming) and two scenarios with alternating use of brushes and hot air were applied to control the weeds during two growing seasons. Treatments were applied at well‐defined intervention moments, based upon weed development. Over 2 years, the paving types differed in weed coverage (up to a fourfold difference) and required varying treatment frequency (up to a 11‐fold difference) with lowest values for pavings with porous pavers. Within most paving types, up to 28% lower treatment frequencies were found for selective application of hot water, as compared with all other single method scenarios. Shifts in weed composition occurred in plots treated repeatedly with the same technique. Paving type determined the chances for the establishment of different weed species and alternating non‐chemical control methods with different modes of action offered the best opportunity to keep weeds under control.     

Modelling interactions between herbicide dose and multiple weed species interference in crop–weed competition

The effects of a range of herbicide doses on crop–multiple weed competition were investigated. Competitivity of Galium aparine was approximately six times greater than that of Matricaria perforata with no herbicide treatment. Competitivities of both weeds decreased with increasing herbicide dose, being well described by the standard dose–response curve with the competitivity of M. perforata being more sensitive than that of G. aparine to a herbicide mixture, metsulfuron‐methyl and fluroxypyr. A combined model was then developed by incorporating the standard dose–response curve into the multivariate rectangular hyperbola competition model to describe the effects of multiple infestation of G. aparine and M. perforata and the herbicide mixture on crop yield. The model developed in this study was used to predict crop yield and to estimate the herbicide dose required to restrict crop yield loss caused by weeds to an acceptable level. At the acceptable yield loss of 5% and the weed combination of 120 M. perforata plants m^?2 and 20 G. aparine plants m^?2, the model recommends a mixture of 1.2 g a.i. ha^?1 of metsulfuron‐methyl and 120 g a.i. ha^?1 of fluroxypyr.     

Non-chemical weed control on traffic islands: a comparison of the efficacy of five weed control techniques

The efficacy of five non‐chemical weed control methods for reducing weed cover on traffic islands was investigated in the growing season of 2004. Three trial sites were divided into six treatment areas which were treated with either flame, steam, hot air, hot water, brushes or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular intervals throughout the growing season. The percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 × 75 cm quadratic frame with 100 squares. In the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas all treatments reduced weed cover. Hot water was the most effective method, although not significantly better than hot air or steam. Hot air treatment was more effective than brushing, whereas hot water was more effective than both flaming and brushing. The doses that were used were relatively high (150–355 kg ha^?1), partly because of the irregular shape of the traffic islands and the treatment intervals were quite short in comparison with those in similar studies. However, the treatments could keep down the weeds only to a certain extent. The present knowledge of the efficacy of various weed control methods, as well as an increase in our knowledge of adequate treatment intervals, supports an optimisation of hard‐surface weed control. Data and experience gained from these trials were used to develop further calibrated application studies.     

苗期水分管理对水稻分蘖及除草剂控草效应的影响

稻田除草剂大量及高频使用对农作物安全、土壤及水体环境构成了严重威胁,使得除草剂减量使用刻不容缓。水稻机插田药后长时间保水可显著抑制杂草,以此可减少除草剂用量,但长时间保水会导致水稻发育受限。盆栽试验表明,无论是否喷施除草剂30%苄嘧·丙草胺乳油,杂草发生随保水时长增加而减少,且喷施除草剂对杂草防除具显著效果。田间试验表明,稻田施用30%苄嘧·丙草胺乳油100 mL/667m~2后,药后保水7 d时的水稻分蘖及抑草的综合效应达到最佳。     

Punch planting, flame weeding and stale seedbed for weed control in row crops

Punch planting is introduced as a new method to reduce weeds within rows in organically grown crops. In this method a hole is punched in the soil, and a seed is dropped into it, without seedbed preparation and soil disturbance outside the hole. In 2 years, punch planting with flame weeding, normal planting with flame weeding and normal planting without flame weeding were compared in fodder beet for five planting dates. Each planting date represented a lag‐period since establishment of the stale seedbed. Over all planting times and years, punch planting with flame weeding reduced intra‐row weed densities by 30% at the two to four leaf stage of fodder beet compared with normal drilling with flame weeding. Punch planting with flame weeding also reduced intra‐row weed densities by 50% compared with normal drilling without flame weeding. In general, there was no improved performance of punch planting with flame weeding over years by later planting, but delayed planting reduced intra‐row weed densities significantly. Over 2 years, 240 day degrees Celsius (4 weeks) planting delay reduced intra‐row weed densities in the range of 68–86% depending on plant establishment procedure. Punch planting with flame weeding offers a promising method of weed control in organic farming.     

小麦田不同杂草群落及防除时间对小麦产量的影响

为明确小麦田不同杂草群落及防除时间对小麦产量的影响,于2013—2015连续两年在山东省聊城市高唐县小麦田中设无草对照区、禾本科杂草区、阔叶杂草区以及混合杂草自然发生区4种不同杂草群落以及不同的杂草防除时间,测定在不同条件下小麦产量及各项产量构成指标的情况。结果表明,阔叶杂草对小麦产量的影响大于禾本科杂草,冬小麦田杂草的最佳防除时间为4月1日之前,在此期间除草对小麦产量影响均不大,但之后防除或不除草会造成小麦严重减产甚至绝产,2014年4月15日除草可造成在阔叶杂草区和杂草混合生长区的小麦减产30.5%和32.6%,不除草可造成在禾本科杂草区、阔叶杂草区和杂草混生区的小麦减产8.6%、91.4%和94.3%,2015年趋势和2014年一致。从构成小麦产量的3个指标来看,杂草危害主要影响小麦的总穗数,其次为穗粒数,对千粒重影响最小。     

Effectiveness of water permeable joint filling materials for weed prevention in paved areas

The recent phase‐out of herbicide use on public pavements in Flanders has triggered the development of alternative strategies for weed prevention and control. In this study, growth chamber experiments investigated the ability of various water permeable joint filling materials for pavements to prevent weed growth. Joint fillers included in the tests comprised five innovative (iron slag sand, polymeric bound sand and three sodium silicate enriched fillers) and eight standard joint fillers (four fine materials, for example, sea sand, white sand, sandstone and fine limestone, and four coarse materials based on porphyry and limestone). Their ability to suppress weeds was investigated by examining seedling emergence and biomass production of seven test species in pure or organically polluted (5%, 10%, 20%, 40% and 80% compost by volume) filler substrate. Selected test species were dominant, hard‐to‐control weeds found on pavements. Seedling emergence and weed biomass were lowest in iron slag sand, polymeric bound sand and most sodium silicate enriched fillers, irrespective of pollution level or test species. Within standard joint fillers, pure white sand, sandstone and the coarse materials also reduced biomass, but their inhibitory effect dropped quickly once organically polluted, in contrast to fine limestone and sea sand for which weed suppression lasted longer (up to 40% compost by volume). Weed suppression of joint fillers was species specific. Our results show that there is potential for preventing weed growth using fillers that prevent the growth of a wide spectrum of plant species over a long period.     

Modelling the effect of crop and weed on herbicide efficacy in wheat

Recommended field application rates of herbicides have to give effective weed control in every situation and are, thus, often higher than that required for specific fields. An understanding of the interaction between crop:weed competition and herbicide dose may, in many cases, allow herbicide application rates to be reduced, important both environmentally and economically. We have developed a model of the interaction between crop:weed competition and herbicide dose, using an empirical model of the relationship between crop yield and weed biomass (related to weed density), and an empirical model of the relationship between weed biomass and herbicide dose. The combined model predicts crop yield, given herbicide dose and weed biomass at an interim assessment date. These crop yield loss predictions may be used to quantify the herbicide dose required to restrict yield loss to a given percentage. Parameters of the model were estimated and the model tested, using results from experiments, which used cultivated oats ( Avena sativa ) or oilseed rape ( Brassica napus ) as model weeds in a crop of winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum ).For the crop:weed:herbicide combinations investigated there was little increase in crop yield for herbicide dose rates above 20% of recommended field rates, in broad agreement with the model predictions. There may still be potential for further reduction below this level on economic grounds; the model could be used to estimate the `break-even' herbicide dose.     

Modelling the effects of sub-lethal doses of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer on crop–weed competition

The effects of sub‐lethal dose of herbicide and nitrogen fertilizer on crop–weed competition were investigated. Biomass increases of winter wheat and a model weed, Brassica napus, at no‐herbicide treatment with increasing nitrogen were successfully described by the inverse quadratic model and the linear model respectively. Increases in weed competitivity (β₀) of the rectangular hyperbola and parameter B in the dose–response curve for weed biomass, with increasing nitrogen were also successfully described by the exponential model. New models were developed by incorporating inverse quadratic and exponential models into the combined rectangular hyperbola with the standard dose–response curve for winter wheat biomass yield and the combined standard dose—response model with the rectangular hyperbola for weed biomass, to describe the complex effects of herbicide and nitrogen on crop–weed competition. The models developed were used to predict crop yield and weed biomass and to estimate the herbicide doses required to restrict crop yield loss caused by weeds and weed biomass production to an acceptable level at a range of nitrogen levels. The model for crop yield was further modified to estimate the herbicide dose and nitrogen level to achieve a target crop biomass yield. For the target crop biomass yield of 1200 g m^?2 with an infestation of 100 B. napus plants m^?2, the model recommended various options for nitrogen and herbicide combinations: 140 and 2.9, 180 and 0.9 and 360 kg ha^?1 and 1.7 g a.i. ha^?1 of nitrogen and metsulfuron‐methyl respectively.     

Controlling Rumex obtusifolius by means of hot water

Hot‐water treatment of broad‐leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) was developed as an alternative to manual digging out in organic farming. During treatment, the top region of the root was heated so that the plants would die back. The aim of this study was to validate the efficacy of the hot‐water treatment of dock roots. The trials were carried out with a commercially available hot‐water high‐pressure cleaner and a rotating nozzle for water application. The target plant control rate assessed 12 weeks after treatment was set at >80%. The appraisal covered 1330 treated plants of varying size from four sites with three different soil texture classes. Parameters which influenced the control rate were water temperature, amount of water, soil moisture and soil texture. Additional parameters recorded were the amount of fuel oil consumption and working time requirements. A reassessment of the plants 1 year after treatment yielded information concerning the ground cover, the possible germination of new dock plants from buried seeds and the soil structure of the site treated. In order to achieve the target control rate of >80%, it is recommended that the temperature of the water leaving the equipment should exceed 80°C. The amount of water required depends on root size and soil moisture. On average, 131 plants per hour can be treated with no negative effects on regrowth or soil structure. Hot‐water treatment is the first functional control alternative to manual digging out R. obtusifolius for organic farming.     

Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies

Physical, cultural and biological methods for weed control have developed largely independently and are often concerned with weed control in different systems: physical and cultural control in annual crops and biocontrol in extensive grasslands. We discuss the strengths and limitations of four physical and cultural methods for weed control: mechanical, thermal, cutting, and intercropping, and the advantages and disadvantages of combining biological control with them. These physical and cultural control methods may increase soil nitrogen levels and alter microclimate at soil level; this may be of benefit to biocontrol agents, although physical disturbance to the soil and plant damage may be detrimental. Some weeds escape control by these methods; we suggest that these weeds may be controlled by biocontrol agents. It will be easiest to combine biological control with fire and cutting in grasslands; within arable systems it would be most promising to combine biological control (especially using seed predators and foliar pathogens) with cover‐cropping, and mechanical weeding combined with foliar bacterial and possibly foliar fungal pathogens. We stress the need to consider the timing of application of combined control methods in order to cause least damage to the biocontrol agent, along with maximum damage to the weed and to consider the wider implications of these different weed control methods.