Next Article in Journal
Identifying the Critical Stage Near Anthesis for Waterlogging on Wheat Yield and Its Components in the Yangtze River Basin, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.) Interference, Control and Recovery under Different Management Practices and its Effects on the Grain Yield and Quality of Maize Crop
Previous Article in Journal
CitrusYield: A Dashboard for Mapping Yield and Fruit Quality of Citrus in Precision Agriculture
Previous Article in Special Issue
Weed-Competitive Ability of Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) Varieties
Open AccessArticle

Flaming, Glyphosate, Hot Foam and Nonanoic Acid for Weed Control: A Comparison

Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Via del Borghetto 80, 56124 Pisa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(1), 129; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010129
Received: 18 December 2019 / Revised: 7 January 2020 / Accepted: 11 January 2020 / Published: 15 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Weed Management & New Approaches)
Synthetic herbicides are commonly used in weed management, however, 70 years of use has led to weed resistance and environmental concerns. These problems have led scientists to consider alternative methods of weed management in order to reduce the inputs and impacts of synthetic herbicides. The aim of this experiment was to test the level of weed control using four weeding methods: glyphosate applied at an ultra-low volume, the organic herbicide nonanoic acid, flaming, and hot foam. The results showed that weed control was effective only when flaming and hot foam were applied (99% and 100% weed control, respectively). Nonanoic acid at a dose of 11 kg a.i. ha−1 diluted in 400 L of water did not control developed plants of Cyperus esculentus (L.), Convolvulus arvensis (L.) and Poa annua (L.). Glyphosate at a dose of 1080 g a.i. ha−1 (pure product) only controlled P. annua (L.), but had no effect on C. esculentus (L.) and C. arvensis (L.). After the aboveground tissues of weeds had died, regrowth began earlier after flaming compared to hot foam. There was no regrowth of P. annua (L.) only after using hot foam and glyphosate. Hot foam was generally better at damaging the meristems of the weeds. In one of the two experiment sites, significantly more time was needed after the hot foam to recover 10% and 50% of the ground compared to flaming. The time needed to recover 90% of the ground was on average 26–27 days for flaming and hot foam, which is the time that is assumed to be required before repeating the application. A total of 29 days after the treatments, weeds were smaller after flaming, glyphosate and hot foam compared to nonanoic acid and the control, where they had more time to grow. View Full-Text
Keywords: alternative methods; herbicide; organic; pelargonic acid; thermal tools; ultra-low volume alternative methods; herbicide; organic; pelargonic acid; thermal tools; ultra-low volume
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Martelloni, L.; Frasconi, C.; Sportelli, M.; Fontanelli, M.; Raffaelli, M.; Peruzzi, A. Flaming, Glyphosate, Hot Foam and Nonanoic Acid for Weed Control: A Comparison. Agronomy 2020, 10, 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010129

AMA Style

Martelloni L, Frasconi C, Sportelli M, Fontanelli M, Raffaelli M, Peruzzi A. Flaming, Glyphosate, Hot Foam and Nonanoic Acid for Weed Control: A Comparison. Agronomy. 2020; 10(1):129. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010129

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martelloni, Luisa; Frasconi, Christian; Sportelli, Mino; Fontanelli, Marco; Raffaelli, Michele; Peruzzi, Andrea. 2020. "Flaming, Glyphosate, Hot Foam and Nonanoic Acid for Weed Control: A Comparison" Agronomy 10, no. 1: 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010129

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop