A Review on Parameters Affecting the Choice of Alternative (Non-Chemical) Weed Control Methods

  • Hasan Sahin 


Abstract Views
675

Downloads
565

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Nov 17, 2019
Published Dec 4, 2019
10.24018/ejeng.2019.4.12.1641

Abstract viewed = 675 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Chemical using as a weed control method is the most preferred method in weed control because they are easily accessible, easily applicable and inexpensive. But, with the new environment-friendly regulations, the importance of non-chemical methods has increased all over the world. In addition, organic farm and non-chemical agricultural methods are gaining importance with increasing social environment and health awareness. Non-chemical methods, called, "alternative methods” have been one of the most popular research subjects in recent years. The physical removal or killing of weeds is usually done by hand or by means designed tools for this task, which varies from country to country. The most known modern non-chemical weed control methods are; electric current,  microwave heating, superheated steam, infrared using, pneumatic system, freeze-drying, laser cutting, and fresnel lens systems. The most popular of these methods are; electric current method and microwave heating. In electric current and microwave heating methods, there are no chemical residues in soil and plants after application. It has been shown in the studies that, the microwave weed control method can destroy weeds and seeds when appropriate frequency, sufficient time and required power level are selected. Therefore, in the selection of non-chemical weed control methods, some important parameters of plant and soil should be known. The electrical and dielectric properties of plants and soil such as, electrical resistance (R), impedance (Z), dielectric constant (?’), loss factor (?’’), the permittivity (permeability ( and conductivity (?) should be known especially in microwave and electric current methods. The other parameters like the age, height and density of the plant is an issue to be considered in all control methods. But, the moisture content of soil and plant may not be taken into consideration in hot water and steam applications. For the freeze-drying method, the moisture and water content of the plant and soil must also be taken into account.

Keywords: Weed Control Parameters Microwave Non-Chemical Electric Current

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Doyle, C. J. (1997). A review of the use of models of weed control in integrated crop protection. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 64(2), 165-172.
     Google Scholar
  2. Westwood, J. H., Charudattan, R., Duke, S. O., Fennimore, S. A., Marrone, P., Slaughter, D. C., & Zollinger, R. (2018). Weed management in 2050: Perspectives on the future of weed science. Weed science, 66(3), 275-285.
     Google Scholar
  3. Brand, J., Yaduraju, N. T., Shivakumar, B. G., & Murray, L. (2007). Weed management. Lentil, 159-172.
     Google Scholar
  4. Coleman, G. R., Stead, A., Rigter, M. P., Xu, Z., Johnson, D., Brooker, G. M., ... & Walsh, M. J. (2019). Using energy requirements to compare the suitability of alternative methods for broadcast and site-specific weed control. Weed Technology, 1-18.
     Google Scholar
  5. Bakker, T., Bontsema, J., & Müller, J. (2010). Systematic design of an autonomous platform for robotic weeding. Journal of Terramechanics, 47(2), 63-73.
     Google Scholar
  6. Hua, W, Bennett E, And Letcher R, 2006. Ozone Treatment and The Depletion of Detectable Pharmaceuticals and Atrazine Herbicide İn Drinking Water Sorced from the Upper Detroit River Ontario Canada. Water Research 40 (2006) 2259-2266.
     Google Scholar
  7. Ying, G, And Williams B, 2000. Dissipation of Herbicides İn Soil and Grapesin a South Australian Vineyard. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 78 (2000) 283-289.
     Google Scholar
  8. Sahin, H., 2012. A Research on Determination the Applicability of Microwave as a Weed Control Method in Agricultural Production, PhD Thesis, Harran University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science.
     Google Scholar
  9. Ascard, J. 1990. Weed Control in Ecological Vegetable Farming. In A. Granstedt (Ed). Proceedings of The Ecological Agriculture, Nordiske Jordbrugsforskeres Forening, Seminar, 166, 178-184.
     Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, D. W., Krall, J. M., Delaney, R. H., & Pochop, L. O. (1989). Response of monocot and dicot weed species to Fresnel lens concentrated solar radiation. Weed Science, 37(6), 797-801.
     Google Scholar
  11. Nelson, S., O., 1996. A Review and Assessment of Microwave Energy for Soil Treatment to Control Pests. Transactions of The Asae, 39(1), 281–289.
     Google Scholar
  12. Bigu-Del-Blanco, J., Bristow, J.M., and Romero-Sierra, C., 1977. Effects of Low-Level Microwave Radiation on Germination and Growth Rate in Corn Seeds. Proceedings of IEEE, Volume:65, Issue:7, P:1086-1088.
     Google Scholar
  13. Ascard, J., Hatcher, P.E., Melander, B., and Upadhyaya, M.K., 2007. Thermal Weed Control. Pp. 155-176.
     Google Scholar
  14. Aladjadjiyan, A., 2010. Effect of Microwave Irradiation on Seeds of Lentils. Romanian Biophys., Vol.20, No:3, P:213-221, Bucharest, 2010.
     Google Scholar
  15. Fogelberg, F., 2004. Water-Jet Cutting of Potato Tops: Some Experiences from. Sweden. P.111.
     Google Scholar
  16. Sahin H., Saglam R, 2015 “A Research about Microwaves Effects on.Germination of Weed Plants”, Arpn Journal of Agricultural and Biological. Science. Vol.10, No:3
     Google Scholar
  17. Sahin, H., 2014, Effects of Microwaves on Germination of Weed Seeds, Journal of Biosystem Engineering 39(4):304-309. (2014. 12).
     Google Scholar
  18. Taheri, S., Brodie, G., Jacob, M. V., & Antunes, E. (2018). Dielectric properties of chickpea, red and green lentil in the microwave frequency range as a function of temperature and moisture content. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy, 52(3), 198-214.
     Google Scholar
  19. Weis, M., Gutjahr, C., Ayala, V. R., Gerhards, R., Ritter, C., & Schölderle, F. (2008). Precision farming for weed management: techniques. Gesunde Pflanzen, 60(4), 171-181.
     Google Scholar
  20. Gage, K. L., & Schwartz-Lazaro, L. M. (2019). Shifting the Paradigm: An Ecological Systems Approach to Weed Management. Agriculture, 9(8), 179.
     Google Scholar
  21. Armstrong, D. L., Leasure, J. K., & Corbin, M. R. (1968). Economic comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control. Weed Science, 16(3), 369-371.
     Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, S. O. (2008). Dielectric properties of agricultural products and some applications. Research in Agricultural Engineering, 54(2), 104-112.
     Google Scholar
  23. Vincent, Charles, Bernhard Panneton, and Francis Fleurat-Lessard, Eds. Physical Control Methods in Plant Protection. (Page 174-179). Springer Inra Editions, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  24. Khaled, D. E., Novas, N., Gazquez, J. A., Garcia, R. M., & Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2015). Fruit and vegetable quality assessment via dielectric sensing. Sensors, 15(7), 15363-15397.
     Google Scholar
  25. Van Emmerik, T., Steele-Dunne, S. C., Judge, J., & Van De Giesen, N. (2016). Dielectric response of corn leaves to water stress. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14(1), 8-12.
     Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, S. O. (2018). RF Electrical Seed Treatment to Improve Germination. In 2018 ASABE Annual International Meeting (p. 1). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
     Google Scholar
  27. Jacob, J., Khadar, M. A., Lonappan, A., & Mathew, K. T. (2008). Microwave dielectric properties of nanostructured nickel ferrite. Bulletin of Materials Science, 31(6), 847.
     Google Scholar
  28. Bajwa, A. A., Mahajan, G., & Chauhan, B. S. (2015). Nonconventional weed management strategies for modern agriculture. Weed science, 63(4), 723-747.
     Google Scholar
  29. Rana, A., & Derr, J. F. (2018). Responses of Ten Weed Species to Microwave Radiation Exposure as Affected by Plant Size. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 36(1), 14-20.
     Google Scholar
  30. Lundensia, A. S., & Persson, B. (2015). Destruction of seeds from Sinapsis Alba, var. Emergo with 50 mM Ca2+ and high voltage pulses. Acta Scientiarum Lundensia, 2, 1-14.
     Google Scholar
  31. Ivanovich, B. V., & Viktorovich, Y. I. (2018). Efficiency Estimation of Type of the Electrical Exposure On Plants at Theır Processing. Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 8(1).
     Google Scholar
  32. Rona, S. A., Valverde, B., De Souza, D. T. M., & de Andrade Coutinho Filho, S. (2019). Weed inactivation device.
     Google Scholar
  33. Gogo, E. O., Huyskens-Keil, S., Krimlowski, A., Ulrichs, C., Schmidt, U., Opiyo, A., & Dannehl, D. (2016). Impact of direct-electric-current on growth and bioactive compounds of African nightshade (Solanum scabrum Mill.) plants. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, 89.
     Google Scholar