• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Weed Technology: A journal of the Weed Science Society of America >Using energy requirements to compare the suitability of alternative methods for broadcast and site-specific weed control
【24h】

Using energy requirements to compare the suitability of alternative methods for broadcast and site-specific weed control

机译：Using energy requirements to compare the suitability of alternative methods for broadcast and site-specific weed control

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相关主题

摘要

The widespread use of herbicides in cropping systems has led to the evolution of resistance in major weeds. The resultant loss of herbicide efficacy is compounded by a lack of new herbicide sites of action, driving demand for alternative weed control technologies. While there are many alternative methods for control, identifying the most appropriate method to pursue for commercial development has been hampered by the inability to compare techniques in a fair and equitable manner. Given that all currently available and alternative weed control methods share an intrinsic energy consumption, the aim of this review was to compare methods based on energy consumption. Energy consumption was compared for chemical, mechanical, and thermal weed control technologies when applied as broadcast (whole-field) and site-specific treatments. Tillage systems, such as flex-tine harrow (4.2 to 5.5 MJ ha(-1)), sweep cultivator (13 to 14 MJ ha(-1)), and rotary hoe (12 to 17 MJ ha(-1)) consumed the least energy of broadcast weed control treatments. Thermal-based approaches, including flaming (1,008 to 4,334 MJ ha(-1)) and infrared (2,000 to 3,887 MJ ha(-1)), are more appropriate for use in conservation cropping systems; however, their energy requirements are 100- to 1,000-fold greater than those of tillage treatments. The site-specific application of weed control treatments to control 2-leaf-stage broadleaf weeds at a density of 5 plants m(-2) reduced energy consumption of herbicidal, thermal, and mechanical treatments by 97, 99, and 97, respectively. Significantly, this site-specific approach resulted in similar energy requirements for current and alternative technologies (e.g., electrocution 15 to 19 MJ ha(-1), laser pyrolysis 15 to 249 MJ ha(-1), hoeing 17 MJ ha(-1), and herbicides 15 MJ ha(-1)). Using similar energy sources, a standardized energy comparison provides an opportunity for estimation of weed control costs, suggesting site-specific weed management is critical in the economically realistic implementation of alternative technologies.

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号