Advertisement

Organic Agriculture

, Volume 3, Issue 3–4, pp 141–147 | Cite as

Impact of single and repeated flaming on yield components and yield of maize

  • Avishek Datta
  • Strahinja Stepanovic
  • Dejan Nedeljkovic
  • Chris Bruening
  • George Gogos
  • Stevan Z. Knezevic
Article

Abstract

Weeds are a major yield-limiting factor in both conventional and organic crop production systems. In maize (Zea mays) production, propane flaming could be used as an additional tool for weed control. Thus, maize tolerance to single and repeated flaming was studied with eight treatments, which included the following: nonflamed control and broadcast flaming conducted once at V2 (two-leaf), V4 (four-leaf), and V6 (six-leaf) stage, two times (each at V2 and V4, V2 and V6, and V4 and V6 stages), and three times (at V2, V4, and V6 stages). All the plots including the nonflamed control were maintained weed-free during the entire growing season by hoeing as weeds appeared. A propane dose of 50 kg ha−1 was applied with torches parallel to the crop row and at an operating speed of 4.8 km h−1 for all treatments. The crop responses evaluated were crop injury at 7 and 28 days after treatment and effects on yield components and yield. Maize exhibited excellent tolerance to single and double flaming regardless of the growth stage. However, the triple flaming resulted in more than 30 % injury. Maize flamed once and twice produced between 11.1 and 11.6 t ha−1 yield, which was statistically similar to the yield obtained from the nonflamed control (11.7 t ha−1). Maize flamed three times yielded 9.9 t ha−1, which was 8.5 % lower compared to the nonflamed control yield, and likely would not be acceptable by producers. Results of this study indicate that maize is able to tolerate up to two flaming treatments per season without a loss of yield.

Keywords

Organic crop production Organic agriculture Nonchemical weed control Crop tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Propane Education and Research Council and the Nebraska Propane Association for the partial financial support of this project. We are also grateful for the help provided by Jon Scott and many summer helpers.

References

  1. Abouziena HFH, Omar AAM, Sharma SD, Singh M (2009) Efficacy comparison of some new natural-product herbicides for weed control at two growth stages. Weed Technol 23:431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ascard J (1995) Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res 35:397–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ascard J (1998) Comparison of flaming and infrared radiation techniques for thermal weed control. Weed Res 38:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartolo ME, Schwartz HF, Schweissing FC (1994) Yield and growth response of onion to simulated storm damage. HortSci 29:1465–1467Google Scholar
  5. Boyd NS, Brennan EB, Fennimore SA (2006) Stale seedbed techniques for organic vegetable production. Weed Technol 20:1052–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruening CA (2009) Development of propane flaming equipment for thermal weed control in agronomic crops. M.S. thesis, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruening CA, Gogos G, Ulloa SM, Knezevic SZ (2009) Performance advantages of flaming hood. In: Hartzler RG and Hartzler AN (eds) Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society conference, vol 64. Kansas City, MO, USA, p 30Google Scholar
  8. Datta A, Knezevic SZ (2013) Flaming as an alternative weed control method for conventional and organic agronomic crop production systems: a review. Adv Agron 118:399–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hiltbrunner J, Liedgens M, Bloch L, Stamp P, Streit B (2007) Legume cover crops as living mulches for organic wheat: components of biomass and the control of weeds. Eur J Agron 26:21–29Google Scholar
  10. Knezevic SZ, Ulloa SM (2007) Flaming: potential new tool for weed control in organically grown agronomic crops. J Agric Sci 52:95–104Google Scholar
  11. Knezevic SZ, Datta A, Bruening C, Gogos G (2012) Propane-fueled flame weeding in corn, soybean, and sunflower. http://www.agpropane.com/uploadedFiles/Agriculture/Program_Safety_On_The_Farm/Flame%20Weeding%20Training%20Manual_08-27-12_final%20(2).pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2012
  12. Knezevic SZ, Stepanovic S, Datta A, Nedeljkovic D, Tursun N (2013) Soybean yield and yield components as influenced by the single and repeated flaming. Crop Prot 50:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Penfold CM, Miyan MS, Reeves TG, Grierson IT (1995) Biological farming for sustainable agricultural production. Aust J Exp Agric 35:849–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rifai MN, Astatkie T, Lacko‐Bartosova M, Gadus J (2002) Effect of two different thermal units and three types of mulch on weeds in apple orchards. J Environ Eng Sci 1:331–338Google Scholar
  15. Shoup DE, Al-Khatib K, Peterson DE (2003) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 51:145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sivesind EC, Leblanc ML, Cloutier DC, Seguin P, Stewart KA (2012) Impact of selective flame weeding on onion yield, pungency, flavonoid concentration, and weeds. Crop Prot 39:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS) (2005) The GLIMMIX procedure. Version 9.1. Online documentation. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Ulloa SM, Datta A, Knezevic SZ (2010a) Growth stage influenced differential response of foxtail and pigweed species to broadcast flaming. Weed Technol 24:319–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ulloa SM, Datta A, Knezevic SZ (2010b) Tolerance of selected weed species to broadcast flaming at different growth stages. Crop Prot 29:1381–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ulloa SM, Datta A, Bruening C, Neilson B, Mille J, Gogos G, Knezevic SZ (2011a) Maize response to broadcast flaming at different growth stages: Effects on growth, yield and yield components. Eur J Agron 34:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ulloa SM, Datta A, Knezevic SZ (2011b) Growth stage influenced sorghum response to broadcast flaming: effects on yield and its components. Agron J 103:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Walz E (1999) Final results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers’ Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Wszelaki AL, Doohan DJ, Alexandrou A (2007) Weed control and crop quality in cabbage [Brassica oleracea (capitata group)] and tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum) using a propane flamer. Crop Prot 26:134–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Avishek Datta
    • 1
  • Strahinja Stepanovic
    • 2
  • Dejan Nedeljkovic
    • 3
  • Chris Bruening
    • 4
  • George Gogos
    • 4
  • Stevan Z. Knezevic
    • 2
  1. 1.Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment, Resources and DevelopmentAsian Institute of TechnologyPathum ThaniThailand
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Northeast Research and Extension CenterUniversity of NebraskaConcordUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  4. 4.Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations