Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 68–73 | Cite as

The probability of maize biomass contamination with weed seeds

Article

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion in biogas reactors generates a semi-solid leftover, the digestate, which is frequently used as a crop fertiliser. If weed seeds in the maize biomass that is used for feedstock survive the process of anaerobic digestion, the use of digestate could contribute to the spread of weeds. We investigated here the probability that weeds enter the biogas production chain via maize biomass. Five organic and four conventional maize fields were sampled to determine the identity, density and biomass of the weeds present, and the number and viability of seeds produced. This was done separately for plant parts below and above the anticipated cutting height of the maize crop, close to the anticipated harvest date. Weed density varied from 56 to 568 weeds m−2 and weed seed production from 886 to 229 256 seeds m−2. Conventional fields tended to have lower weed biomass, lower seed production, and lower proportion of the seeds above the cutting height of maize, with lower seed viability. The main weeds were Chenopodium album and Echinochloa crus-galli. In general, either weed plants were small and produced few seeds that were largely found below the cutting height of maize, or they were tall and produced numerous seeds that were largely found well above the cutting height. Given the numbers of weed seeds produced per hectare in this study, it is likely that some will survive anaerobic digestion in biogas plants, although in low numbers, as seed survival during anaerobic digestion tends to be low.

Keywords

cutting height seed viability weed seed production weed height 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arthurson V, 2009. Closing the global energy and nutrient cycles through application of biogas residue to agricultural land — potential benefits and drawbacks. Energies 2, 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colleran E, 2000. Hygienic and sanitation requirements in biogas plants treating animal manures or mixtures of manures and other organic wastes. http://www.ava1.de/botulinum/DS4_Colleran-1.pdf. (last accessed 1 Novem-ber 2011).Google Scholar
  3. Harker KN, Kirkland KJ, Baron VS & Clayton GW, 2003. Early-harvest barley (Hordeum vulgare) silage reduces wild oat (Avenafatua) densities under zero tillage. Weed Technol 17, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Henneberg M, 2010. Meteorologische Daten aus Rostock, Satower Str. 48 für das Jahr 2010. http://www2.auf.unirostock.de/ll/Schwerpunkte/Wetterstation/wetterstation.html?#2010. (last accessed 11 January 2012).Google Scholar
  5. Jeyanayagam SS & Collins ER, 1984. Weed seed survival in a dairy manure anaerobic digester. T ASAE 27, 1518–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Katovich EJS, Becker RL & Doll J, 2004. Weed seed survival in anaerobic digesters. The Minnesota Project. http://www.mnproject.org/pdf/Weed%20Seed%20long%20-% 20web%20cx.pdf. (last accessed 1 November 2011).Google Scholar
  7. Leonhardt C, Weinhappel M, Gansberger M, Brandstetter A, Schally H & Pfundtner E, 2010. Untersuchungen zur Verbreitungsgefahr von samenübertragbaren Krankheiten, Unkräutern und austriebsfähigen Pflanzenteilen mit Fermentationsendprodukten aus Biogasanlagen. Endbericht zum Forschungsprojekt 100296/2. http://www.ages.at/uploads/media/100296_Endbericht_biogas_dafne_letztfassung.pdf (last accessed 1 November 2011) (in German).Google Scholar
  8. Mertens SK, 1998. Weed communities on six ecological farms in Flevoland. MSc Thesis Wageningen Agricultural University. 76 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Mehrtens J, Schulte M & Hurle K, 2005. Unkrautflora in Mais, Ergebnisse eines Monitorings in Deutschland. Ges Pflanzen 57, 206–218 [in German].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moore RP, 1985. Handbook on tertrazolium testing. The international seed testing association, Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  11. Neylon JM & Kung Jr L, 2003. Effects of cutting height and maturity on the nutritive value of corn silage for lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 86, 2163–2169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sarapatka B, Holub M & Lhotska M, 1993. The effect of farmyard manure anaerobic treatment on weed seed viability. Biological Agric Hortic 10, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schrade S, Oechsner H, Pekrun C & Claupein W, 2003. Einfluss des Biogasprozesses auf die Keimfähigkeit von Samen. Landtechnik 58, 90–91 (in German).Google Scholar
  14. Westerik M & Kleizen R, 2006. Onderzoek sanitatie tijdens anaërobe vergisting ter bestrijding van onkruidzaden en ziektekiemen. HoSt Bio-energy installations BV, Hengelo, Netherlands http://www.vergisting.nl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/1492rap01-rev-02–22–10–07.pdf (last accessed 1 November 2011) (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  15. Westerman PR, Hildebrandt, F & Gerowitt B, accepted. Weed seed survival following ensiling and mesophilic anaerobic digestion in batch reactors. Weed Res.Google Scholar
  16. Wu Z & Roth G, 2004. Considerations in managing cutting height of corn silage. Extension bulletin DAS 03–072. http://www.das.psu.edu/research-extension/dairy/nutrition/pdf/cscutheight.pdf (last accessed 1 November 2011).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phythomedizinische Gesellschaft 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group Crop Health, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations