Determining treatment frequency for controlling weeds on traffic islands using chemical and non-chemical weed control

Anne Merete Rask; S.U. Larsen; Christian Andreasen; Palle Kristoffersen

doi:10.1111/wre.12019

Determining treatment frequency for controlling weeds on traffic islands using chemical and non-chemical weed control

Anne Merete Rask, S.U. Larsen, Christian Andreasen, Palle Kristoffersen

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Many public authorities rely on the use of non-chemical weed control methods, due to stringent restrictions on herbicide use in urban areas. However, these methods usually require more repeated treatments than chemical weed management, resulting in increased costs of weed management. In order to investigate the efficacy of four non-chemical weed control methods and glyphosate treatment, experiments were carried out on traffic islands in the growing seasons 2005 and 2006. Three trial sites were each divided into six treatment areas, which were either treated with glyphosate, flame, steam, hot air/flame, hot water or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular, predetermined intervals throughout the growing season in 2004, whereas in 2005 and 2006 how many treatments that were required to keep weed cover below a predetermined acceptance level of 2% were investigated. Percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 cm × 75 cm quadrat divided into 100 squares. On the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas weed cover could be kept below 2% by 2–7 treatments per year, depending on control method. On average, the following numbers of treatments per year were required: glyphosate 2.5, hot water 3, flames 5, hot air/flames 5.5 and steam 5.5 treatments. The results demonstrate that the weed control should be adjusted to the prescribed quality for the traffic islands by regularly assessing the need for weed control. They also show that tailored treatments can reduce the number of required non-chemical treatments per year.

Original language	English
Journal	Weed Research
Volume	53
Issue number	4
Pages (from-to)	249-258
Number of pages	10
ISSN	0043-1737
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12019
Publication status	Published - Aug 2013

Access to Document

10.1111/wre.12019

Cite this

@article{3ba58e1b681141e1bd85d4c440136b59,

title = "Determining treatment frequency for controlling weeds on traffic islands using chemical and non-chemical weed control",

abstract = "Many public authorities rely on the use of non-chemical weed control methods, due to stringent restrictions on herbicide use in urban areas. However, these methods usually require more repeated treatments than chemical weed management, resulting in increased costs of weed management. In order to investigate the efficacy of four non-chemical weed control methods and glyphosate treatment, experiments were carried out on traffic islands in the growing seasons 2005 and 2006. Three trial sites were each divided into six treatment areas, which were either treated with glyphosate, flame, steam, hot air/flame, hot water or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular, predetermined intervals throughout the growing season in 2004, whereas in 2005 and 2006 how many treatments that were required to keep weed cover below a predetermined acceptance level of 2% were investigated. Percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 cm × 75 cm quadrat divided into 100 squares. On the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas weed cover could be kept below 2% by 2–7 treatments per year, depending on control method. On average, the following numbers of treatments per year were required: glyphosate 2.5, hot water 3, flames 5, hot air/flames 5.5 and steam 5.5 treatments. The results demonstrate that the weed control should be adjusted to the prescribed quality for the traffic islands by regularly assessing the need for weed control. They also show that tailored treatments can reduce the number of required non-chemical treatments per year.",

author = "Rask, {Anne Merete} and S.U. Larsen and Christian Andreasen and Palle Kristoffersen",

year = "2013",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1111/wre.12019",

language = "English",

volume = "53",

pages = "249--258",

journal = "Weed Research",

issn = "0043-1737",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determining treatment frequency for controlling weeds on traffic islands using chemical and non-chemical weed control

AU - Rask, Anne Merete

AU - Larsen, S.U.

AU - Andreasen, Christian

AU - Kristoffersen, Palle

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Many public authorities rely on the use of non-chemical weed control methods, due to stringent restrictions on herbicide use in urban areas. However, these methods usually require more repeated treatments than chemical weed management, resulting in increased costs of weed management. In order to investigate the efficacy of four non-chemical weed control methods and glyphosate treatment, experiments were carried out on traffic islands in the growing seasons 2005 and 2006. Three trial sites were each divided into six treatment areas, which were either treated with glyphosate, flame, steam, hot air/flame, hot water or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular, predetermined intervals throughout the growing season in 2004, whereas in 2005 and 2006 how many treatments that were required to keep weed cover below a predetermined acceptance level of 2% were investigated. Percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 cm × 75 cm quadrat divided into 100 squares. On the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas weed cover could be kept below 2% by 2–7 treatments per year, depending on control method. On average, the following numbers of treatments per year were required: glyphosate 2.5, hot water 3, flames 5, hot air/flames 5.5 and steam 5.5 treatments. The results demonstrate that the weed control should be adjusted to the prescribed quality for the traffic islands by regularly assessing the need for weed control. They also show that tailored treatments can reduce the number of required non-chemical treatments per year.

AB - Many public authorities rely on the use of non-chemical weed control methods, due to stringent restrictions on herbicide use in urban areas. However, these methods usually require more repeated treatments than chemical weed management, resulting in increased costs of weed management. In order to investigate the efficacy of four non-chemical weed control methods and glyphosate treatment, experiments were carried out on traffic islands in the growing seasons 2005 and 2006. Three trial sites were each divided into six treatment areas, which were either treated with glyphosate, flame, steam, hot air/flame, hot water or left untreated. The treatments were carried out at regular, predetermined intervals throughout the growing season in 2004, whereas in 2005 and 2006 how many treatments that were required to keep weed cover below a predetermined acceptance level of 2% were investigated. Percentage weed cover was measured every second week using a 75 cm × 75 cm quadrat divided into 100 squares. On the control areas, a rapid increase in weed cover was observed, whereas weed cover could be kept below 2% by 2–7 treatments per year, depending on control method. On average, the following numbers of treatments per year were required: glyphosate 2.5, hot water 3, flames 5, hot air/flames 5.5 and steam 5.5 treatments. The results demonstrate that the weed control should be adjusted to the prescribed quality for the traffic islands by regularly assessing the need for weed control. They also show that tailored treatments can reduce the number of required non-chemical treatments per year.

U2 - 10.1111/wre.12019

DO - 10.1111/wre.12019

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0043-1737

VL - 53

SP - 249

EP - 258

JO - Weed Research

JF - Weed Research

IS - 4

ER -