=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper46
|storemode=property
|title=Flame Weeding in Corn, Soybean and Sunflower
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper46.pdf
|volume=Vol-2030
|authors=Stevan Knezevic
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/Knezevic17
}}
==Flame Weeding in Corn, Soybean and Sunflower==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2030/HAICTA_2017_paper46.pdf
Flame Weeding in Corn, Soybean and Sunflower
Stevan Z. Knezevic
Professor of Integrated Weed Management Northeast Research and Extension Center,
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, Concord, Nebraska 68728, USA Email: sknezevic2@unl.edu
1-402-584-3808/1-402-584-3859 (fax)
Abstract. Flaming as a vegetation control method based on utilizing heat to
increase temperatures high enough to boil water inside the plant tissue, which
is then resulting in plant death from the loss of membrane and cuticle
breakdown (plant desiccation), denaturation of proteins, and water boiling.
Machines are available to deliver the heat utilized during the flame weeding,
and they are commonly referred as “weed flamers”. A propane-fueled weed
flamers utilize a propane-fueled burners to expose plant tissues to rapid heat.
Several flame weeding systems are commercially available, ranging from
small, handheld flamers that can be used to control weeds in residential home
gardens to multi-row (tractor-pulled) flamers for use over larger acres of land.
Flame weeding has a potential to be used effectively in at least 6 agronomic
crops (field corn, sweet corn, popcorn, sorghum, soybean, sunflower) when
conducted properly at the most tolerant growth stage.
Keywords: Flaming, flame weeding, propane, weed, crop, heat.
1 Introduction
The interest for organic crop production in the United States is increasing due to
strong demand for organic food from consumers and an attractive income potential
for organic farmers. Organic crops can be used for human consumption (food grade
crops) or making organic feed rations and different food products. Weeds are one of
the major pests and are responsible for significant reductions in crop yields. Organic
production systems do lack an effective weed management practice, as weeds are a
major production-related problem because the use of synthetic herbicides is not
allowed. Therefore, organic producers rely extensively on mechanical cultivation
and hand weeding. Mechanical cultivation is one of the most commonly utilized
weed control practices in row crops. Cultivation, however, leaves a strip of
uncontrolled weeds within 10-15 cm on either side of the crop row, directly
influencing crop yield. Also, repeated cultivation causes loss of soil organic matter,
destroys soil aggregate, increases the chance for soil erosion and promotes
emergence of new weed flushes. The labor required for hand weeding is expensive in
USA (ranging from $300 to $800 ha–1), time consuming and difficult to organize
390
(Kruidhof et al., 2008). Hence, systems-oriented approaches to weed management
that make better use of alternative weed management tactics need to be developed
(Kruidhof et al., 2008). Propane flaming is one of the most promising alternatives for
weed control in organic cropping systems (Knezevic, 2009). Therefore, the objective
of this brief article is to provide some insights of this innovative method of weed
control and promote our manual for propane fueled flame weeding. Since this
conference is about Information and Communication Technology, the hope is that the
topic of flame weeding will contribute “a new type of information” and make
colleagues who work in the area of information technology aware of this new
technology for weed control.
2 Propane flaming (Flame weeding)
Propane flaming (or flame weeding), is a process of exposing plant tissues to
flames coming from a propane burner, which can generate combustion temperatures
of up to 1,900 oC. Direct heat injury results in denaturation of membrane proteins,
which further results in loss of cell function (Lague et al., 2001). Direct heat injury
also causes cell proteins to denature (starting at 113 degrees Fahrenheit or 45 degrees
Celsius). Temperatures in the range of 203–212 degrees Fahrenheit (95–100 degrees
Celsius) have been lethal to weed leaves and stems when applied for at least 0.1
seconds, which further results in cell desiccation and ultimately the loss of cell
function (Lague et al., 2001). The loss of water and denaturing of proteins drastically
reduces the weed’s competitive ability to survive. In general, plants die from loss of
membrane semi-permeability and cuticle breakdown (resulting in plant desiccation),
denaturation of proteins, and other chemical decomposition. Morphological
differences of plant species are important in determining sensitivity to heat, including
factors such as: leaf type, leaf thickness, leaf cuticle type, location of growing point,
nature of storage organs. Leaf orientation (upright or flat) and shape, cuticle
characteristics, presence of hair, growth stage, and degree of stress (both moisture
and nutrient) will affect sensitivity or interfere with a passing of the heat.
2.1 Flame Weeding Equipment
Propane-fueled flaming equipment must have several major components to carry out
a successful and safe flaming treatment. The following are basic equipment
components: propane supply tank, supply network and plumbing, torches (burner)
(Knezevic et al, 2014b).
2.2 Weed response to propane flaming
Ascard (1995) classified weed species to four groups according to their susceptibility
to propane flaming. The first group consisted of species with unprotected growing
points and thin leaves [e.g., common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.)]: these
391
species can be easily controlled using propane doses of 20 to 50 kg/ha. The second
group consisted of species with relatively protected growing points and leaves that
were moderately heat-tolerant [e.g., common knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare)]:
these species can be completely controlled, but required propane doses higher than
50 kg/ha. The third group contained species with more protected growing points
[e.g., shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris)]: these species can be completely
controlled at early stages (up to 4-leaf stage), but complete control is difficult to
achieve at later growth stages. The fourth group consisted of plants with creeping
growth habit and well protected growing points (e.g., perennial broadleaf and
grasses): these plants regrow from their below ground meristems. To control species
belonging from the third and the fourth group, flaming treatments should be
conducted more than once.
Knezevic et al., (2009c; 2014a, b) determined that the propane doses of 60-80
kg/ha were highly effective in controlling many broadleaf weeds at early growth
stages (up to 25 cm tall). Such doses provided over 90% control of major broadleaf
species (velvetleaf, ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. (=I. barbigera
Sweet, I. desertorum House), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common
waterhemp, lambsquarters, field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L. (=C. ambigens
House, c. incanus auct. Non Vahl), kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. [=K. alta
Bates, K. sieversiana (Pallas) C.E. Mey.]), and Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum L.
[=Trionum t. (L.) [= Trionum t. (L.) Woot. & Standl.])) and 80% control of several
grass species (barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. [= E. pungens
(Poir.), Rydb., Panicum c. L.]), green foxtail, and yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca (L.)
Beauv. [=S. lutescens (Wreigle), F.T. Hubbard,S. pumila (Poir.) Roemer and J.A.
Schultes])). The annual broadleaf and grass weed species responded differently to
the flame and heat (Ulloa et al., 2010a, b). Leaves of annual broadleaf species were
completely desiccated within a few days after flaming, and there was no plant
regrowth especially when flamed with doses above 60 kg propane ha–1.
2.3 Flame Weeding in Agronomic Crops
Crop susceptibility to propane flaming varies with species and growth stages
(Knezevic and Ulloa, 2007). Grass type crops (e.g., field corn, popcorn, sweet corn
and sorghum) are more tolerant to propane flaming than the broadleaf crop (e.g.,
soybean). Post-emergent flaming is not recommended in winter wheat due to high
injury level and unacceptable yield reduction. Corn and sorghum can be safely
flamed at their growth stages between VE (emergence) to V10 (10-leaf) stage.
Soybean is tolerant to flaming only at the VE-VC stage (emergence-unfolded
cotyledon) and at the V4-V5 stage (4-5 trifoliate). It is not recommended to flame
soybean at the VU, V1 (first trifoliate), V2 and V3 (third trifoliate), as these stages
are very sensitive to heat and will result in very high crop injury and yield reduction
(Knezevic et al. 2014b).
392
2.4 Economics of flame weeding
From an economic stand point, the costs of a single flaming operation applied
broadcast below crop canopy could be $30–$40/ha, without taking into account the
costs of the equipment and labor [current price of propane ($0.5/kg × 60–80 kg).
Banded application (over the crop row) of flaming can cost $12–$20/ha due to lower
propane use rates (30–40 kg/ha).
2.5 Practical implications of flame weeding
Flame weeding is an acceptable weed control option in organic production and has
received renewed interest for conventional cropping systems. It can be used as part of
an integrated pest management program not only for weeds but also for insect control
in agronomic crops. Flaming has a potential to be used effectively in organic crop
production systems of three corn types, sorghum, soybean and sunflower when
conducted properly at the most tolerant growth stage. It is important to emphasise
that propane flaming should not be the only method for non-chemical weed control;
however, it could be part of an IWM program. Other measures are still needed to
control weeds that emerge later during the growing season. More research is needed
to perhaps develop new flaming equipment and methods of flaming. Information
from such research would expand flaming options as part of an IWM program for
both organic and conventional crop production systems.
2.6 Manual for Propane-Fueled Flame Weeding in corn, soybean and sunflower
From 2006-2012 we have conducted a series of over 40 studies, which were funded
by PERC and other sources (e.g. USDA). This extensive work resulted in over 20
journal and proceeding articles about crop tolerance to heat and weed control with
flame weeding in field corn, popcorn, sweet corn, sunflower, soybean, sorghum and
winter wheat. We compiled the above research information into a training manual
that describes the proper use of propane fueled flaming as a weed control tool in six
agronomic crops (field corn, popcorn, sweet corn, soybean, sorghum, and sunflower).
The flame weeding manual contains 32 pages of text and color pictures. The pictures
provide visuals of crop growth stages when flaming can be conducted safely without
having side-effects on crop yield. Pictures of weeds provide visuals of appropriate
growth stages when weeds need to be flamed to achieve good weed control. There
are six chapters in the manual: (1) The need for alternative weed control methods; (2)
Propane fueled-flame weeding; (3) How flame weeding works; (4) Equipment and
configurations; (5) Propane dosage at different weed growth stages, and (6) Crop
Tolerance to post-emergent flame weeding. We believe that our manual provides a
recipe on how to use flaming procedures and it is written in a user friendly manner
that can be understood by the general public. The manual is free, it can be
downloaded in a pdf format from the following website:
http://www.agpropane.com/ContentPageWithLeftNav.aspx?id=1916
393
References
1. Ascard, J. (1995). Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental
stages. Weed Res. 35, 397–411.
2. Knezevic, S. Z., and Ulloa, S. M. (2007). Flaming: potential new tool for weed control
in organically grown agronomic crops. J. Agric. Sci. 52, 95–104.
3. Knezevic, S. Z. (2009). Flaming: A New Weed Control Tool in Organic Crops. Crop
Watch, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. Web page:
http://cropwatch.unl.edu/archives/2009/crop17/organic_flaming.htm (accessed March 12,
2012).
4. Knezevic, S. Z., Datta, A., and Ulloa, S. M. (2009c). Tolerance of selected weed
species to broadcast flaming at different growth stages. In “Proceedings of the 8th
European Weed Research Society Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control” (D.
C. Cloutier, Ed.), pp. 98–103, Zaragoza, Spain.
5. Knezevic S., Stepanovic S, and Datta A. 2014a. Growth Stage Affects Response
of Selected Weed Species to Flaming Propane. Weed Technology, 28(1):233-242.
6. Knezevic, S., A. Datta, C. Bruening and G. Gogos, 2014b. Propane Fueled Flame
Weeding in Corn, Soybean and Sunflower. A 38 page manual, free downloads
from http://www.agpropane.com/ContentPageWithLeftNav.aspx?id=1916
7. Kruidhof, H. M., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M. J. (2008). Ecological weed
management by cover cropping: effects on weed growth in autumn and weed
establishment in spring. Weed Res. 48, 492–502.
8. Lague, C., Gill, J., and Peloquin, G. (2001). Thermal control in plant protection.
In “Physical Control Methods in Plant Protection” (C. Vincent, B. Panneton, and
F. Fleurat-Lessard, Eds.), pp. 35–46, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
9. Ulloa, S. M., Datta, A., and Knezevic, S. Z. (2010a). Growth stage influenced
differential response of foxtail and pigweed species to broadcast flaming. Weed
Technol. 24, 319–325.
10. Ulloa, S. M., Datta, A., and Knezevic, S. Z. (2010b). Tolerance of selected weed
species to broadcast flaming at different growth stages. Crop Prot. 29, 1381–
1388.
394