Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T10:07:36.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential of Air-Propelled Abrasives for Selective Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frank Forcella
Frank Forcella*
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Frank.Forcella@ars.usda.gov.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Novel forms of selective weed control are needed by many types of growers, but especially by organic growers who are restricted from using synthetic herbicides. Abrasive grit made from corn cobs was expelled from a sand blaster at 517 kPa pressure and aimed at plants of common lambsquarters and corn positioned 300 mm distant. Most small weed plants were killed by one split-second blast of grit, but corn plants suffered little damage by the same treatment. Air-propelled grit made from agricultural residues possibly could be used for selective nonchemical weed control without the need for soil tillage.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.corn, Zea mays L.Gritorganic controlnonchemical controlphysical controlsand blaster

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2009, pp. 317 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Cloutier, D. C., Leblanc, M., and Johnson, E. 2007. Non-inversion production techniques in North America. Pages 3–14. In Cloutier, D. 7th European Weed Research Society Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Rostock, Germany: Universität Rostock.Google Scholar
Lütkemeyer, L. 2000. Hydropneumatische unkrautbekampfung in reihenkulturen. Z. Pflanzenkr. Pflanzenschutz Sonderh 17:661–666.Google Scholar
Nørremark, M., Sørensen, C. G., and Jørgensen, R. N. 2006. HortiBot: comparison of present and future phytotechnologies for weed control—part III. Pages 14. In. ASABE Annual International Meeting Papers. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Paper 067023.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerste, P. E. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, C. G., Nørremark, M., Jørgensen, R. N., Jensen, K., Maagaard, J., and Jensen, L. A. 2007. HortiBot: Feasibility study of a plant nursing robot performing weeding operations—part IV. Pages 12. In. ASABE Annual International Meeting Papers. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Paper 077019.Google Scholar
Van Der Weide, R. Y., Bleeker, P. O., Achten, V. T. J. M., Lotz, L. A. P., Fogelberg, F., and Melander, B. 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Res 48:215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar