Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Currents on Plants and Other Organisms, with Special Reference to Weed Control
Author(s): M. F. Diprose, F. A. Benson and A. J. Willis
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Botanical Review, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1984), pp. 171-223
Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4354034 .
Accessed: 16/03/2013 13:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
New York Botanical Garden Press and Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Botanical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
THE
BOTANICAL
VOL.
50
REVIEW
APRIL-JUNE, 1984
No. 2
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Abstract .----------------------------------------172
Sommaire.------------------------------------------------173
Introduction ..14...
..............
174
....
Definition of Forms of Electrical Energy
..
.
175
A. Electrostatic Fields .--------------.----.--..--..-----175
.
B. Microwave Radiation
.176
C. Electrical Discharges and Direct Electric Shocks
.
177
Electrostatic Fields and their Lethal Effects on Plants ..-------------------------------------------177
A. Introduction ..----------------------------------------------------------------177
B. Plant Growth in the Presence of Electric Fields
.....
178
C. The Lethal Effects of Electric Fields on Plants ..
179
.
D . C onclusions
186
..18------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(i) Summary
186
(ii) Practical Weed Control by High Electric Fields ........................................ ...... 187
Microwaves and Weed Control ...---------------------------------187
A. Uses of Microwaves in Agriculture ---------------------------------........-...............
187
B. Laboratory Experiments with Microwave Radiation on Plants and Seeds
190
Copies of this issue [50(2)] may be obtained from: Scientific Publications Office,
The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY 10458 USA. PRICE (Includes postage
and handling fee. Valid until 31 December 1984): U.S. Orders: $10.75. Non-U.S.
Orders: $11.50. (Payment, U.S. currency only and either drawn on a U.S. bank or
made out by intemational
money order, should accompany order. Thank you.)
171
172
................................................
196
C. Field Experiments with Microwaves for Weed Control
D. The Effect of Microwave Radiation upon Soil Microorganisms and
N em ato des ..---- --- -- --- --- -- --- --- -- --- --- ----- --- --- -- --- ---------- --- 202
E. Conclusions ..204------................. 204
.
(i) Summary.------------------------------------------204
----206
(ii) Thermal or Non-thermal Mechanisms of Death.
207
(iii) Practical Weed Control by Microwaves .................
209
V. The Effect of Electric Currents Applied Directly to Plants and Soils .
209
.
A. Soils, Plants and Applied Currents
.....
212
B. Weed Control by High Voltages ...........
215
C. Conclusions .............................................................
(i) Summary.----------------------------------------------------215
(ii) Practical Weed Control by Electric Discharges and Currents.
...... 216
217
VI. Acknowledgments
................
217
VII. Literature Cited.------------------..----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
A wide-ranging review is presented of the effects of various forms of
externally applied electrical energy upon plants and other organisms. Although investigations involving both small and large amounts of energy
directed at the targets are considered, a particular emphasis of this review
is the feasibility of each type of electrical stimulation for weed control.
Electrostatic fields ranging from 100 V m-I to 800 kV m-I have been
applied to plants under laboratory conditions and in field trials since the
1880's. Some beneficial effects have been reported (e.g. increase in yield
from both cereal and vegetable crops), but the results have been erratic
and the electrical conditions leading to definite benefits on a large scale
could not be confidently predicted from early studies. High electric fields
are reported to damage plants if currents greater than 10-6 A are induced
to flow through leaves causing corona discharges from the tips. The nature
of the damage and the effects on metabolic processes are discussed. The
results from experiments on the growth of plants in which the density
and charge of air ions have been varied are also reviewed.
The effects of microwave radiation (mostly 2450 MHz) upon seeds,
plants and other organisms in soil are discussed. These effects depend
upon the power density of the radiation and the electrical properties of
the targets. Factors such as size of seeds and plants, shape and moisture
content are important, as are the properties of the soil irradiated (notably
water content). Although microwaves can be effective in killing plants
and also seeds that are buried several centimeters deep in soil, high power
equipment is required and treatment times are long e.g. a 60 kW machine
could take up to 92.6 hours per hectare. Other experiments reported show
that microwave radiation can kill nematodes in the soil and that it is also
very effective in killing fungi and bacteria. The potential of the various
possible uses of microwave radiation in agriculture is also described.
173
Electric currentshave been caused to flow through plants by the application of electrodesto the leaves. The effectsrangefrom nil, when 50100 V and 1 or 2 ,uAare used, to very strikingwhen voltages from 5 to
15 kV areappliedcausingcurrentsof severalamperesto flow and resulting
in the rapiddestructionof the target.Smallelectriccurrentspassedthrough
soil containingplants are reportedto increasetheir growth.The effectsof
small currenton the growth of individual leaves are reviewed. The use
of high voltage tractor-borneequipment for weed control is also considered.
Sommaire
Une revue a largesthemes presenteles effets des diverses formes d'application externed'energieelectriquesur les plantes et autresorganismes.
Bien que des recherchescomportanta la fois de petiteset grandesquantites
d'energiedirigeessur les cibles en question soient prises en consideration,
un des aspects particuliersde cette revue est la possibilite d'application
de chaquetype de stimulationelectriqueau controledes mauvaisesherbes.
Depuis environ 1880, les plantes ont ete soumises, soit en laboratoire,
soit lors d'essais sur le terrain, a des champs electrostatiquesallant de
100 V m' a 800 kV m'. Quelqueseffets benefiquesont ete enregistres,
par exemple, l'accroissementde la productiondes recoltes de cerealeset
de legumes; mais les resultats etaient irregulierset les conditions electriquesconduisanta des profitsbien determinesa grandeechelle ne pouvaient pas etre predites avec confiance des premieres etudes. On s'est
apercuque de grandschamps electriquespouvaient deteriorerles plantes
si des courants superieursa 10-6 A etaient amenes a circuler dans les
feuilles, entrainantdes dechargesde la couronne a partirdes pointes. La
nature des degats ainsi que les effets sur les procedes metaboliques sont
ici etudies, de meme que les resultats des experiences sur la croissance
des plantes pour lesquelles la densite et la chargedes ions dans I'air ont
ete changes.
Les effets du rayonnementpar micro-ondes (pour la plupartde 2450
MHz) sur les graines, les plantes et autres organismes du sol sont ici
exposes. Ces effets dependentde la densite electriquedu rayonnementet
des proprieteselectriquesdes objectifs. Des facteurstels que la taille des
graineset des plantes, leur forme et leur teneur en humidite sont importants, comme le sont les proprietesd'un sol irradie(notammentsa teneur
en eau). Bien que les micro-ondes puissent etre efficaces pour tuer des
plantes et aussi des graines enterreesa plusieurs centimetres de profondeur, un important appareillageelectriqueest necessaireet les temps de
traitementsont longs; par exemple une machine de 60 kW peut prendre
jusqu'a 92,6 h ha-'. D'autres experiencesdemontrerentque le rayonnement par micro-ondes pouvait tuer les nematodes dans la terre et qu'il
174
etait tres efficacepour detruireles champignonset les bacteriesdu soussol. Le potentiel des diverses utilisations possibles de la radiation par
micro-ondes en agricultureest egalementdecrit.
Des courantselectriquesont ete amenes a circulera traversdes plantes
par l'applicationd'electrodessur les feuilles. Les effets, nuls quand 50 a
100 V et 1 a 2 ,uA sont utilises, sont par contre frappantsquand des
voltagesde 5 a 15 kV sont appliques,entrainantla circulationde courants
de plusieurs amp'ereset la destruction rapide des cibles. On remarque
cependantque, de petits courantselectriquesenvoyes dans un sol contenant des plantes, accelerentleur croissance;les effets d'un faible courant
surla croissancedes feuillesindividuellessont ici reexamines.L'utilisation
d'un appareillagea haut voltage mobile pour le controle des mauvaises
herbes est aussi pris en consideration.
I. Introduction
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
175
176
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
formed by placing two conductors apart from each other (they need not
necessarilybe parallelor both planar)and connecting them to a voltage
source. The electric field strength for parallel planar conductors is defined as
V
E= d
where E is the electric field strengthin the air gap between the electrodes
(conductors)measured in volts per meter, V the voltage applied to the
conductorsin volts, and d the distance between them in meters. For the
parallel-plateconfigurationthe field is uniform between the conductors,
but differentexpressions exist to describe other more complex non-uniform field patternsthat arise, for instance, with one planarelectrode(e.g.
earth) and an overhead wire, or when a plant is introducedbetween two
parallelplates.
II.B MICROWAVE RADIATION
to heat is given by
Pabs = 0.556fE2Er"x 10-10 Wm-3
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
177
R
The units of alternatingvoltage and currentare volts or amps r.m.s. The
latterterm standsfor "root mean square"and describesthe effectivevalue
of a voltage or currentwaveform that varies continually with time (e.g.
an alternatingcurrentwhich has the same effect on a load as a 1 A direct
currenthas a value of 1 A rms).
III. Electrostatic Fields and their Lethal Effects on Plants
III.A INTRODUCTION
178
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
179
findingsand the inconsistency of other results, the use of electricaltreatments of plants lost favor. Apart from a few supporters(Sidaway, 1969;
Sidawayand Asprey, 1968), the methods did not attractattentionalthough
more recently interest has been shown in the effects of air ions, rather
than electric fields, on plant growth (Bachmanet al., 1971; Kotaka and
Krueger,1968; Kotaka et al., 1965; Kruegeret al., 1965, 1978).
III.C THE LETHAL EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC FIELDS ON PLANTS
The term "lethal electrotropism"was suggestedby Murr (1964a) following a series of experiments on the effects of electric fields on plants.
In these experiments(Murr,1963a, 1963b) an electricfieldwas established
between two aluminium wire grids (0.24 m2). A lower electrode was
situatedbelow the soil in a plot in which seedlingsof orchardgrass(Dactylis glomerata)were planted. An upper electrode was suspended above
the soil and adjustedin height to vary the electric field strength,but was
never more than 10 cm above the tops of the plants. Temperatureand
light intensity were controlled(unspecified)and a 16-hourday lengthwas
used. The controlplots had the same electrodearrangementas the "active"
ones, but without the voltages applied. The top electrodewas made positive and the bottom one connected to the negative of the power supply
simulatingthe earth's naturalelectric field (Chalmers, 1967).
Murr(1963a, 1963b) observed that duringcontinuous exposureto the
electrostaticfieldsthe leaf tips of the seedlingsbeganto brown,as if burnt,
and he noted the similarityto mineraldeficiencysymptoms. Betweenthe
region of leaf tip "burning"and the normal tissue was a small strip of a
much deeper green color than usual. He also found that damage spread
downwardsfrom the tip at a fasterratethan the growthof the plant (Murr,
1963b). The plants were clipped to a height of 2.5 cm after two weeks,
twice more at weekly intervals, and the dry weights of the clippings obtained. Murrdefineda damage factoras the proportionof the dry weight
of electrifiedto control samples (averageof three results) expressedas a
percentage.For orchardgrass, damagewas found to rise to 25%at a field
strengthof 50 kV m-1 and then rapidlyincreasedto 50%at 75 kV m-l.
Similarresultswere obtainedwith seedlingsof reed canarygrass(Phalaris
arundinacea)(Murr, 1963b). Transversesections of some leaves showed
that the epidermalcells had been destroyedin the brownedtip and damaged in the darkgreenzones. Therewas complete absenceof cell structure
in the tip area and chloroplastderangementin the dark green band.
Murr believed a possible cause of this damage was the migration of
ionized salts to the leaf tip under the action of the electric field. The
resultingconcentrationunbalancemight upset normal osmotic phenomena and cause ruptureof the cells. To investigate this furtherhe applied
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
180
Table I
The concentrationof elementsin the leaf tips of orchardgrass(Dactylisglomerata)
seedlingsafter exposureto electrostaticfields (afterMurr, 1964b)
Electrostatic
strfielgth
(kV m-')
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
30
50
104
94
95
97
75
97
98
Iron
Zinc
Aluminum
177
104
169
202
258
317
233
324
181
was taller and greenerthan oats not subjectedto electric fields. Again in
an experiment at Rothamsted ExperimentalStation in 1917, Blackman
(1924) found that barleywas tallerand greenerafter20 days of application
of the electric field than that in the neighboringcontrol plot, althoughthe
visual differencebetween the crops subsequentlybecame less marked.
Priestley( 19 10) suggested(withoutproof)that the deepergreenin wheat
might result from a slight but continuous amount of nitratesbeing added
to the soil by the overheaddischarge,perhapsformedin a similarmanner
as the combination of oxygen and nitrogen producedby thunderstorms
is washed into the soil by rain. One soil test (Priestley, 1907) indicated
some three times the amount of nitrogenin the soil beneath an overhead
discharge than in the soil in the control plots, but unfortunatelymeasurementswere taken only after the crops had been harvested.However
Blackman(1924) reportedno appreciabledifferencesin soil nitrogencontent before and after the application of electric fields to oats. A further
unconfirmedsuggestionby Priestley(1907) is that plants exposed to electrostaticfields may utilize atmosphericnitrogendirectly,perhapsby combination of gaseous nitrogen with carbohydrateswithin the plant.
Hart and Schottenfeld(1979) also observed that leaves of pole beans
(Phaseolusmultiflorus)becamedarkergreenwhen exposed to electrostatic
fields resulting in corona current from a few points on the leaf edges.
Prolongedexposurecaused loss of turgorand collapse of the plants. The
pole bean plants were grownin individual containers(20?C;30%relative
humidity). Soil moisture content was monitored by measuringthe resistance between two brass posts set 4.5 cm apart.The plants were 5-10 cm
high at the time of treatment(estimatedfrom Fig. 1. of Hart and Schottenfield, 1979), and the mesh electrode was about 5 cm above the top of
the plant. With the electrode chargednegatively, plants sustained 2 ,uA
of corona currentfor 8 hours with no visible effects, and with 20 AA of
corona currentthere was little change in soil resistanceafter 5 hours but
the plant began to droop and one leaf became dark green and lost "texture."At 50 ,A, however, leaf discolorationdeveloped rapidlyand stem
collapseoccurredwithin 45 minutes.Withthe electrodechargedpositively
and 20 ,A of corona current,wilting occurredmore rapidlyand therewas
a largeincreasein soil resistance(about 35%in 3 hours).If slightlydrooping plants were waterednear their stems they became turgidagain. Hart
and Schottenfeldattributedthe effectsto severe waterloss from the leaves
caused by the corona current.
Bachmanand Reichmanis (1973a) applied various strengthsof electric
field to single leaves of barleythat were five days old and 5 cm long with
the cut end of the leaf in contactwith the negativeelectrode,and a positive
electrodesuspendedabove the leaf. Their resultsindicatedthat with fields
less than 40 kV m- I leaf tip burningwould not occur,but at a field strength
182
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
183
184
progress further down the leaves after one week and was 5-7 mm in
extent. At 25 kV m-l (60 Hz) damage was limited to 1-2 mm. When
placed in "undisturbed"electric field strengthsgreaterthan 30 kV m-'
leaves were seen to flutterowing to corona-inducedmotion.
Murr(1965b, 1966a, 1966b, 1966c)investigatedthe effectof "reversed"
(i.e. upperelectrodenegative)electrostaticfields,alternating(60 Hz) fields
and magnetic fields upon the growth of young plants. He concluded that
it was possible to stimulate their growth if the electricalconditions were
carefully chosen. If the electric fields became too large, corona current
flowedand causeddamageto leaf surfaces.The thresholdvalues per plant
for damagewere 5 x 10-7 A for orchardgrass(Dactylisglomerata)(Murr,
1965a), 1.5 x 10-8 A for sweet corn (Zea mays) and 3 x 10-8 A for wax
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)(Murr, 1966c).
Murr proposed (1965b) a modification to his earlier theories (1963a,
1963b, 1964a, 1964b) to include the effect of corona current. It was
suggested that this caused damage to the epidermal layer of a leaf by
stimulating respiration and metabolism. Moderate electric fields led to
epidermaldamage and were believed to result in respiratoryaction sufficient to stimulategrowth but not to cause substantialleaf tissue damage.
Raising electric field strengths was thought to cause over-stimulation,
enzyme toxicity and sufficientepidermaldamageto resultin death of leaf
tissue. Murr(1966a) concluded that currentbelow 10-16 A per plant had
no effect but growth stimulation occurredin the range 10-I5 to 10-9 A
per plant. At 10-8 to 10-6 A per plant, leaf damage occurs, and plant or
leaf destructionoccurs at 10-5 A and above.
Blackman and Legg (1924), while examining the stimulation of the
growth of barley by electric fields, used currentsfrom 0.3 x 10-9 A to
175 x 10-9 A per plant to maximize the response. The higher currents,
however, were found to be injurious:above a level of 10-8 A per plant
there was damage to the plant tissue. Collins et al. (1929) claimed that
passing 75 x 10-9 A per plant had no effect on maize, but with larger
currentssome plants showed injury.
Scott (1967) reportedthat attempts to modify growthby using electrostatic fields were inconclusive, most having no effector retardinggrowth.
He also noted that lethal damagemay be causedby coronadischargefrom
leaf tips.
Kruegerand others (Kotaka and Krueger, 1968; Kruegeret al., 1978)
have experimentedwith changes in the density of air ions. It is believed
that the effects observed in the past may have been due more to the
atmospheric ion conditions that the electric fields per se. They showed
that increasingthe air ion density (from the normal values of approximately 4.0 x 103 ions cm-3 to approximately3.5 x 107 ions cm-3) resultedin speededup respirationand growthratesof youngbarleyseedlings
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
185
186
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
to tobacco leaves, complete death of a plant from the gas has not been
suggested.Bankoskeet al. (1976) measuredthe amounts of ozone present
when leaf tip burningoccurredduringcorona dischargefrom leaves. The
level was 16 parts per billion (ppb) compared to an ambient level of 8
ppb. It was concludedthat ozone was unlikelyto have causedany damage.
Blackmanet al. (1923) passed small currents(0.5 x 10-10 A per plant)
throughbarleyseedlings(Hordeumvulgarevar. Goldthorpe).The current
was generatedby means of a needle connected to a high voltage source
(ca. 10 kV) suspended 20 cm above the plants, applied with the needle
electrode positive for one hour or three hours and for three hours with
the needle negative. The positive polarity produceddefinite increasesin
growth rate over controls (no electric field or current)which increased
with time and persistedfor up to four hours afterthe currentwas stopped.
The negative polarityresultedin an initial increasefollowed by a steadily
decreasingrate of growthcomparedwith controls. When the currentwas
switched off, however, growth rates began to rise again still above the
control values but less than those of the positively chargedset. Further
workled them to concludethat neitherthe "electricwind" nor the gaseous
byproducts(i.e. ozone and nitrogenoxides) of the corona dischargewere
responsiblefor the effecton the growthof the plantswhen a currentpassed.
III.D CONCLUSIONS
187
188
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
to
6?C and
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
189
190
Table II
The effect of microwave radiation on seeds of four species (values give germination
percentage or seedling survival; from Davis et al., 1971)
4h
imbibed seed
Dry seed
Species
46 h
germinatingseed
45
270
23
45
23
45
J g-'
J g-l
J g-l
J g-l
J g-'
J g-I
0
Arachis hypogaea
100
83
53
46
Cucumis sativus
93
71
74
69
47
31
75
35
74
48
12
0
0
Echinochloa colonum
Amaranthus sp.
LABORATORY
EXPERIMENTS
WITH MICROWAVE
RADIATION
Davis et al. (1971) irradiated seeds of twelve species (Zea mays, Arachis
hypogaea,Prosopisjuliflora, Cucumissativus, Brassica sp., Rumex crispus, Echinochloa colonum, Amaranthussp., Gossypiumhirsutum, Glycine max, Sorghum vulgare,Triticumvulgare)in a microwave chamber.
The magnetron source operated at 2450 MHz and 600 W. Samples of
dry seed, wet seed (4 hour imbibed) and germinating seed (46 hours) of
each species were investigated. Irradiation energies were measured with
respect to a 50 ml water load which gained 270 J g-I during a 60 second
exposure in the cavity.
There was a wide variety of responses but, in general, samples of dry
seed were less susceptible than 4 hour imbibed or 46 hour germinating
seeds (Table II). Dry seed could withstand six times the treatment of
imbibed seeds, e.g. for Arachis hypogaea, dry seed treated at 270 J g-'
191
Table III
Germination percentages and seedling survival for two (of eight) species whose
resistance to microwave radiation was greater for germinating seeds than for 4
hour imbibed seeds (from Davis et al., 1971)
Dry seed
45
270
J g-
JJg-
Zea mays
73
Sorghum vulgare
88
15
54
Species
4h
imbibed seed
23
-1
26
22
46 h
germinatingseed
45
23
45
J g-
J g-I
J g-1
52
62
15
gave 83% germination; 4 hour imbibed seed at 45 J g- ' did not germinate
at all; 46 hour germinating seed at 45 J g- I showed no seedling survival.
The other eight species showed similar results except that the 46 hour
germinating seeds were less susceptible than 4 hour imbibed ones (Table
III).
Fourteen-day-old plants of nine of the species were irradiated, damage
ranging from 3% of tissue (Brassica sp.) to 100% (Gossypium hirsutum)
for 9 J g-1 treatment. At 36 J g-' tissue damage was 25% and 100%
respectively.
Experiments were also carried out with combinations of dry and imbibed seeds in wet and dry sand. The condition of the soil containing the
seeds was found to be less important than the moisture content of the
seeds themselves in determining the susceptibility.
Davis et al. (1973) concluded that for 15 taxa [Canavalia ensiformis,
were
= 30 seconds.
The energy gained by a load depends upon many factors, among them
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
192
Table IV
Energy/
seed
(g)
(J)
Canavaliaensiformis
-1.5
-5.7
Zea mays
Prosopis juliflora
Triticum vulgare
-0.3
-4.2
14
--0.06
-2.2
-0.03
-1.7
Species
AT calc. ?C
s= I
3.8
s= 2
1.9
Germination
(%)
--4
-15
37
19
--49
57
29
--81
x s x AT
(1)
193
Table V
Energy required for median toxicity in dried and imbibed seeds (after Rice and
Putnam, 1977)
Energydensity for LD50(J cm-2)
Species
Dry seed
Imbibedseed
Medicago lupulina
Portulaca oleracea
Echinochloa crus-galli
183
139
160
161
80
117
lead to the result that seeds with the lowest germinationhave the lowest
temperaturerises. Table IV gives some examples.
Lowestgerminationvalues would, however, be expectedfrom the seeds
with the highest temperaturerises. The discrepancycould be explained
if Davis et al. (1973) calculatedthe energyvalues per seed from exposure
times in the cavity and the energygained by the waterload in 60 seconds
ratherthan by measurement(e.g. calorimetricmethods).
Rice and Putnam(1977) investigatedthe effectsof microwaveradiation
on seeds of six species (Amaranthusretroflexus,Portulacaoleracea,Medicago lupulina,Digitaria sanguinalis, Echinochloa crus-galliand Setaria
italica). Samples were in a quartz holder placed in the waveguide and
microwave radiation was at a frequencyof 2450 MHz, the power level
being variable from 0.1 to 1.5 kW. Energyabsorption by the seeds was
determined by calorimetry immediately after irradiation. Values for a
50% decrease in germination (LDso) ranged between 88 J cm-2 (Digitaria
sanguinalis)and 183 J cm-2 (Medicago lupulina).Seeds of three species
194
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
195
Table VI
The percentageof seeds destroyedafterexposureto 1 kW of 2450 MHz radiation
for 10, 20 or 30 seconds (afterLal and Reed, 1980)
Seed
moisture
content
% seed destroyed
(%)
10 s
20 s
30 s
Harman oats
17.2
7.5
63
5
80
33
90
50
Cypress wheat
17.8
44
77
3
7
24
Wild oats
6.5
18.9
12
88
58
40
7.4
13
Seed type
hours at 1?Cprior to exposure, and tested when still within the soil, were
more susceptible: 100%, 95% and 90% of the seeds being killed in soil at
20.2%, 17.3% and 13.8% moisture contents respectively.
Other experiments showed that Harman oats and Cypress wheat were
far more susceptible than wild oats to 1 kW of 2450 MHz radiation at
both low and high moisture contents (Table VI).
Bigu-del-Blanco et al. (1977) exposed seedlings of Zea mays (var. Golden Bantam) to 9000 MHz radiation. Forty-eight-hour old seedlings in
plastic bags were treated with microwave radiation for 22-24 hours. The
exposure chamber was a microwave anechoic chamber and power density
levels were between 10 and 30 mW cm-2 at the point of exposure in the
absence of the seedlings. Anechoic chamber temperature and humidity
were controlled. Temperature increases up to 4?Cwere measured in treated
specimens when compared with control seedlings in the chamber. After
treatment, irradiated specimens appeared dehydrated and with a rugose
texture. Control seedlings remained healthy and showed about one-fifth
of the moisture loss of the treated seedlings. Not only were the seedlings
different in appearance but when planted in perlite there was a difference
in growth (irradiated retarded), but this disappeared after a few weeks.
The authors concluded that the long exposure to 9 GHz microwave radiation, even at low powers, was sufficient to dehydrate the seedlings so
inhibiting their development.
Crawford (1977) examined the phytotoxic effect of 2450 MHz radiation
on seeds of Trifolium and Medicago (three cultivars of Trifolium repens
and cultivar Eynsford of Medicago sativa). The seeds were exposed in a
microwave oven with a nominal 1.2 kW input; a 100 ml water load had
690 W dissipated in it at the power setting used. Treatment times were
between 5 and 45 seconds. All samples showed a marked decrease in
196
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
Brassica napus (turnip)were sown with the addition of Zea mays (corn)
and Sorghum bicolor(sorghum).The microwave generatorswere drawn
over the plots to give treatmentsof 35 to 325 J cm-2. To obtain consistent
pre-emergencecontrol (>80%) of both broad-leavedplants and grasses
at least 183 J cm-2 was needed.
197
Post-emergent tests were carried out at Weslaco. Young plants of Echinochloafrumentacea(Japanese millet), Sisymbriumirio(London rocket),
Helianthus annuus (sunflower), Euphorbiaglyptosperma(ridgeseed euphorbia) and Amaranthus retroflexus(redroot pigweed) were approximately 14.3, 2.6, 4.8, 0.3 and 4.6 cm high respectively at the time of
treatment (27 days after planting). Energy levels of 77, 154 and 309 J
cm-2 were applied at a power level of 4.4 kW. Eight days after irradiation,
treatment with 77 J cm-2 had completely controlled sunflower, ridgeseed
euphorbia and redroot pigweed. Japanese millet was controlled to the
extent of 73% and London rocket 87%. The two last species were controlled by over 90% with 154 J cm-2 and completely by 309 J cm-2. The
unactivated radiator, however, caused 12%injury to the plants as it passed
over them.
At Freeport there was a natural stand of plants of "cut-leaved primrose"
(Oenotheralaciniata) 5-15 cm high; when treatments of 70 J cm-2 were
applied, 99% of them were killed. The same treatment to young wheat
plants 10 cm tall killed 73% of them. Established "primroses" were more
susceptible than young wheat. A similar trend was observed in glasshouse
studies with morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), redroot pigweed, Texas panicum (Panicumtexanum)and barnyard grass (Echinochloacrus-galli);15day-old plants were more susceptible than 8-day-old seedlings, the greater
susceptibility probably being associated with the larger leaf surface area.
Experiments with Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) in Miller clay
soil showed 100% control of top growth with 560 J cm-2. After two weeks
there were 48 new seedlings im-2 and 11.5 sprouts from rhizomes m-2.
Energy levels of 2240 J cm-2 also resulted in 100% top kill but left only
1.5 seedlings mi-2 and no rhizome sprouts 14 days afterwards.
Table VII shows that there are considerable variations from place to
place in the response of buried seeds to microwave radiation. At the 70
J cm-2 energy level and 4 kW power level, for instance, control of broadleaved weeds ranges from 21-75% and of grasses from 8-60%. At higher
power levels, e.g. 183 J cm-2 (4 kW), control becomes more consistent
(between 80 and 91%) for both types of seed. It is evident that grasses
that have started development are more susceptible to 70 J cm-2 than
buried seeds. At Freeport 10-day-old wheat seedlings were controlled to
the extent of 73% (4 kW) and 67% (5.2 kW) compared with the poor
control of sown wheat grains of 8% (4 kW) and 24% (2 kW). Established
"primrose" was controlled to the extent of 99% (4 kW) compared with
35% for the seeds of other broad-leaved plants.
Plants established above ground are the easiest to kill, as with hoeing,
flaming or spraying. The advantage of microwaves (i.e. penetration into
the soil) is offset by the amount of energy required.
Menges and Wayland (1974) compared weed control by microwaves
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
198
Table VII
Percentage control of plants treated with different energy and power levels (data
from Wayland et al., 1975)
Control (%)
Power
Energy level
(J cm-2) (kW)
70
2
4
Broad-leaved weeds
Freeport
Weslaco
College
Station
Freeport
75
0
21
35
24
8
75
4
4
144
5.2
4
183
325
5.2
94
-
71
-
91
-
80
-
Wes- College
laco Station
30
51
60
"Primrose" 99*
Wheat 73*
Wheat 67*
71
24
77
60
37
89
87
81
-
91
-
60
88
83
5.2
141
Grasses
Results are for treatment of seeds in soil except for those marked * which were treated
after emergence.
Soil moisture contents and type: Freeport = 10%-Lakeland sand, Weslaco = 12%-Hidalgo sandy loam, College Station = 20%-Lufkin sandy loam.
72% of the sunflower were killed. The next most effective herbicide for
London rocket was a propachlor and mulch treatment (9.0 kg ha- 1)which
killed 48% of the London rocket and 20% of the sunflower with 30%
damage to onions. Sunflower was most successfully controlled by methazole and next best was perfluidone (3.4 kg ha-') killing 36% of the
sunflower but with 85% injury to the onions. Microwaves at 360 J cm-2
killed 94% of the London rocket and all of the sunflower. Damage to the
onions was 18% which compared with 12% and 17% damage to them in
the weeded and non-weeded control plots.
Sisymbrium irio, Euphorbia glyptosperma, Amaranthus retroflexus,
Echinochloa frumentacea and Helianthus annuus were seeded in both
199
irrigated and non-irrigated plots and irradiated with 2450 MHz microwaves. Cantaloupe (Cucumis melo var. reticulatus) was seeded 2 cm deep
one day after UHF treatment. In the irrigated plots 45 J cm-2 gave
inadequate weed control but 90 J cm-2 produced over 80% control of all
the weeds except for common purslane (Portulaca oleracea), a volunteer
which was controlled to the extent of 50%. One hundred and eighty J
cm-2 produced greater than 96% control except for common purslane at
81%. The soil temperature was 80?C 1 minute after irradiation and 44?C
10 minutes after exposure (180 J cm-2). The cantaloupe size and stand
were visually estimated to be greater (after treatment at 90 and 180 J
cm-2) than the control.
In the non-irrigated soil all weed species were controlled by 360 J cm-2
and 720 J cm-2 and all except common purslane (77%) at 180 J cm-2.
Soil temperatures reached 103?C (3.8 cm deep) 1 minute after 720 J cm-2
treatment and 47?C after 150 minutes. Cantaloupe yields were increased
in the 180 (150%), 360 (120%) and 720 (140%) J cm-2 plots as compared
with non-weeded control plots.
Menges and Wayland (1974) broadcast-seeded redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), and disked and bedded them up to 13 cm deep in
the soil (sandy loam). London rocket (Sisymbrium irio) and sunflower
(Helianthus annuus) were seeded 2.5 cm deep into irrigated plots. The
irrigated plots were watered daily until microwave treatment, after which
"yellow granex" onions were planted. Seeds in irrigated soils were more
susceptible to the microwave treatment with both London rocket and
sunflower being controlled by 360 J cm-2 (approximately 90% mortality
for both in dry soil). With a treatment of 180 J cm-2, control of London
rocket in wet and dry soils was reduced to 87% and 66% and sunflower
to 93% and 68% respectively. The stage of seed imbibition was thought
to be more significant than soil moisture content.
Redroot pigweed was controlled by a treatment of 360 J cm-2 down
to 7.5 cm in both irrigated and non-irrigated soils and there was an effect
down to 10 cm in the dry soil. At 180 J cm-2 the radiation was effective
to 7.5 and 5.0 cm in the dry and wet soils respectively. At 90 J cm-2 the
radiation was not effective in the irrigated plots and seemed to increase
the germination in the non-irrigated soil. Onion yield was increased at
the 90, 180 and 360 J cm-2 treatment levels by 161%, 272% and 233%
respectively over the non-weeded "check," but, when compared with a
hand-weeded area, the three treatments gave 833%,137% and 120% yields.
Whatley et al. (1973) found that in Sawyer fine sandy loam a low
moisture content (<0.5%) attenuated microwaves less than the same soil
with 10-13% moisture present (2450 MHz). Whatley recommends that,
when used as a pre-emergence treatment, microwaves should be applied
when the top 1-2 cm of soil contains minimum moisture. In a later paper
200
201
202
MICROORGANISMS
RADIATION
UPON SOIL
AND NEMATODES
203
204
In studies by Heald et al. (1973), soil infested with Rotylenchulusreniformis (2300 R. reniformis100 g-') was placed in plastic bagswhich were
buried 2.5 and 8 cm deep in soil. The ground was then irradiatedwith
2450 MHz. Nematode counts showed a significant decrease at energy
densities of 732 and 322 J cm-2 but not at 183 J cm-2. Plants grown in
treatedplots were reportedto be largerthan those in non-treatedsoils.
The effect of microwaves at 2450 MHz was compared with that of a
chemical fumigant (1,3-dichloropropene)by Heald et al. (1974) in the
treatmentof nematodes in the ground.The soil was a Hidalgo fine sandy
loam naturally-infestedwith Rotylenchulusreniformisand common purslane (Portulacaoleracea).The fumigantwas applied 20-25 cm deep at a
rate of 74.8 1 ha-'. Microwaves from a 60 kW source were applied at
400 and 800 J cm-2 and one trialinvolved both fumigantand UHF (1200
J cm-2). Southernpeas ( Vignaunguiculatassp. unguiculatacv. Blackeye)
were planted after the treatment.
Microwavesat 400 J cm-2 gave 31%control of common purslane,but
did not affectthe yield of peas. Nematode counts 50 days aftertreatment
showed populations about eight times the size before treatmentbut this
fell to about four times after 82 days. Common purslane was almost
completely controlledby 800 J cm-2 but this level of treatmenthad little
overall effect on the nematodes. Yields and sizes of pea were, however,
increased.The fumigantalone was the most effectivein reducingnematode
infestations but had no effect on the weeds. Yield and size of pea were
increased as they were also when both UHF and fumigantwere used in
association. Very good control (99%)of common purslanewas achieved
but the counts of Rotylenchulusreniformiswere three times higher after
82 days than with the fumigant alone. It was suggestedthat fumigants
may be effective for nematode control at depths 10 to 25 cm below the
soil surfacein combination with microwaves used for control in the top
10 cm of soil.
IV. E CONCLUSIONS
205
needed to kill the seeds. The differences between soils are progressively
less marked as they become wetter or as the amount of energy provided
is increased (Rice and Putnam, 1977; Wayland et al., 1975; Whatley et
al., 1973). The state of imbibition of buried seeds affects their response
to microwaves. Moist seeds are more susceptible than dry ones whether
in wet or dry soils, and seeds in wet soils are more easily killed than in
dry ones. Large, imbibed seeds in wet soils are the easiest to kill and small
dry ones in or on top of dry soils the most difficult (Hightower et al.,
1974; Menges and Wayland, 1974).
The depth to which treatment is effective in soils obviously depends
upon how far the radiation can penetrate. The soil type, its moisture
content and distribution, density and compaction influence depths of
treatment as well as the frequency and strength of the radiation (Cihlar
and Ulaby, 1974).
Radiation is absorbed more rapidly by wet soils than dry ones. Menges
and Wayland (1974), using a treatment of 360 J cm-2, found it effective
down to 10 cm in dry soils and 7.5 cm in irrigated ones. At 180 J cm-2
penetration was down to 7.5 and 5.0 cm in dry and wet soils respectively.
For a given soil condition the only way to increase the depth of treatment
is to increase the energy density. In a practical situation this means that
any device would have to monitor soil conditions carefully as it progressed, otherwise the effect could vary since it is not uncommon for soils
to differ considerably between one part of a large field and another. In
addition, a device would desirably be operated to get the maximum effect
for a minimal expenditure of energy and, since soil conditions are so
important, constant monitoring would be necessary to ensure effective
treatment. Under the varying soil conditions, high powers and large energy
densities would have to be used to make sure all seeds are killed. The
advantage of microwave weed control systems over flaming or hoeing is
its penetration into the soil but this is offset by its dependence on soil
conditions and the large amounts of energy required.
Plants can be killed by microwaves (Champ et al., 1972; Davis et al.,
1971; Wayland et al., 1972). Broad-leaved weeds are more susceptible
than grasses, especially at lower energy levels, but the difference is not
enough to lead to a useful selective method of control (Wayland et al.,
1975). The greater susceptibility of broad-leaved species may result from
the greater absorption of energy by their larger surface area in comparison
with those of grasses for example.
Microwave radiation has been used to control nematodes (Heald et al.,
1974; O'Bannon and Good, 1971) but it is not as effective as fumigants.
In addition, if only strips are irradiated, re-infestation will take place from
neighboring untreated soil. Fungi have also been successfully controlled
206
(Diprose et al., 1978c; Lyon et al., 1979; Vela et al., 1976) without killing
biologically important bacteria and little damage is done to the soil (Wainwright et al., 1980).
IV.E (ii) Thermal or non-thermal mechanisms of death
The precise cause of death of seeds and plants cannot be definitely
stated. Both thermal and non-thermal mechanisms have been proposed.
Wayland et al. (1972) exposed imbibed seeds of "broadleaf bean" (Phaseolus vulgaris var. Black Valentine) and leaves of three-month-old mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) to 600 W of 2450 MHz radiation. The seeds
rose in temperature to 50?C and only 38% germinated; however, the
germination of similar seeds in a water bath at 50?C was not affected.
Similarly, leaves of mesquite heated to 46?C by microwaves were damaged, but leaves in an oven at 46?C showed no tissue damage after exposure
for 5 minutes. The authors concluded that selective heating or non-thermal effects occurred.
In further experiments Wayland et al. (1 973b) exposed samples of beet
(Beta vulgaris) to 600 W at 2450 MHz and immersed other samples in
water baths. Cell membranes were disrupted but whether by thermal or
non-thermal means was not clearly distinguishable, although membrane
disruption by microwaves apparently occurred at temperatures 20?C below similar disruption in a water bath.
Schrader and Patel (1977) investigated the loss of viability of peas
(Pisum sativum) when exposed to 916 MHz radiation up to 20 kW power
levels. Comparing the results with those obtained by heating peas in
conventional high temperature ovens, they concluded that there was little
likelihood of a significant non-thermal effect. Diprose et al. (1978a) irradiated 100 grains of wheat (Triticum aestivum) with 1 kW, 2450 MHz
radiation for 180 seconds and another 100 grains for six periods of 30
seconds each with 15 minute intervals between exposures. The continuous
exposure killed 84% of the grains compared with 25% of those periodically
exposed. When the experiment was repeated with grains of wheat, barley
and oats, but with a one hour interval between each irradiation, germination values for the continuous exposures were 6%, 4% and 2% and for
the intermittent ones 92%, 96% and 72% respectively. The authors believed that these results indicated principally thermal effects on the grains.
Goldblith and Wang (1 9 6 7) compared the effect of conventional heating
and of microwaves (2450 MHz) on the inactivation of Escherichia coli
and spores of Bacillus subtilis, and found essentially the same results. In
line with these observations, Lechowich et al. (1969) found similar population decreases of suspensions of microorganisms (Streptococcus faecalis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) when irradiated by microwaves and
207
when heated conventionally. Vela and Wu (1979) also concluded that soil
microorganisms were killed only by thermal means when heated by a
nominal 1 kW of 2450 MHz radiation. Olson (1965), however, stated
that growth of bread molds was inhibited by microwaves and the effects
were probably not due to conventional thermal means. Baker and Fuller
(1969) experimented on the control of soil-borne pathogenic fungi with
2450 MHz radiation but were uncertain as to whether there was a nonthermal effect in addition to a thermal one.
Cope (1976) suggested that the evidence of superconductive properties
of biologically important organic substances at high temperatures and the
microwave effects on superconductive tunnelling in carbon films present
the possibility of non-thermal effects of microwaves on biological systems.
Mayers and Habeshaw (1973) observed the depression of phagocytic activity when cultures of mouse macrophages perfused with suspensions of
human red blood cells were exposed to 50 mW cm-2 of 2450 MHz
radiation. The activity returned to normal when the radiation was discontinued, but the depression could not be accounted for thermally, since
the 2.5?C rise in temperature found during irradiation would not have
been expected to increase the activity. Sher et al. (1970) compared the
effects of Joule heating and field-induced forces on "pearl-chain formations" of microscopic particles. They concluded that Joule heating would
predominate over field-induced effects in biological structures smaller
than 50 ,um, excluding the possibility of non-thermal genetic damage by
field-induced force effects from microwaves.
Whether thermal, non-thermal effects, or a mixture of these are the
cause of death of seeds and plants when irradiated by microwaves is not
clearly resolved. When practical microwave weed killers have been used
soil temperatures were found to be quite high-80?C or more (Menges
and Wayland, 1974). High temperatures in seeds have been reported when
irradiated in cavities (Diprose et al., 1978a; Schafer and Smith, 1974).
The presence of water in the seed is also important as this is a medium
which readily absorbs energy. It seems probable, therefore, that the predominant mechanism causing the death of seeds and plants when high
power microwaves are used for weed control in a field situation is thermal.
IV.E (iii) Practical weed control by microwaves
Davis (1974) has listed more than seventeen species of weeds as well
as nematodes, fungal diseases and soil-borne insects, successfully controlled by microwave machines, with control lasting up to 12 months.
His experience and that of others clearly demonstrates that, in practice,
weeds can be killed by microwaves.
Values of 77, 800 and 1600 J cm-2 have all been quoted as the minimum
208
energy necessary for weed control (Hightower et al., 1974; Olsen, 1975;
Wayland et al., 1975). Variations in soil type, conditions and the desired
depth of treatment all influence the amount of energy needed. Energy
densities between 200 and 400 J cm-2 are commonly used. Values of 560
J cm-2 produced inadequate control of Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), 2240 J cm-2 being required for good effect (Wayland et al., 1975).
The amount of energy required determines the speed of treatment as
well as the cost. If 200 J cm-2 is taken as a reasonable figure for energy
density and a 60 kW source is used, it can be calculated that the treatment
time is 92.6 hours per hectare. If only strips were treated this figure might
be reduced by a factor of three or four but it is still a long time. Hightower
et al. (1974) claim that energy densities of 1600 J cm-2 (i.e. 741 h ha-')
are required, and for control of Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) (Wayland et al., 1975) an entire hectare would take 1037 hours. Lal and Reed
(1980) calculated that a 30 kW generator (2450 MHz) used to kill wild
oats (Avenafatua) in soil would cover only 1.8 x 10-3 ha h-I at an
operating speed of 0.1967 km h-1. The times taken are independent of
applicator area and can be reduced only by increasing generator power
or by reducing the treatment (spraying one hectare with herbicide should
not exceed one hour).
The Phytox Corporation was founded in 1971 to develop microwave
weed controlers (Phytox, 1971) and they produced several machines. The
biggest was the Zapper III, a 33,000 kg device. It used a 155 kW dieselalternator set to provide power for two 30 kW, 2450 MHz microwave
generators and the hydraulic drive system. This machine was used for
field trials and demonstration purposes. The Zapper IV was to be the
production model, having the same microwave generator power but some
10,000 kg lighter. It was to be a four-row field machine. Estimates of
working capability were from 0.4-2 ha daily per machine and it was
planned that 14,000-18,000 ha would eventually be treated by microwave
machines. Estimates for cost ranged from $312 ha-1 (1973) for treating
ground prior to planting peach trees (a 50 cm band to a depth of 30 cm
with two side bands of 110 cm to 5-7.5 cm depth) to $38 ha-' for general
control when treating strips to 5-7.5 cm depth (Scientific American, 1973).
The Zapper IV was never, in fact, produced and the entire project has
lain dormant. Recently plans have been suggested for another company
to revive it but no definite statements as to future operations have been
made (1980, Oceanography Int., pers. comm.).
The Phytox Zapper III beamed 60 kW of radiation towards the ground
and although the radiator was close to the soil surface the possibility of
considerable leakage existed. No figures were given as to field strengths
surrounding the machine when operating. Monitors which protected the
drivers would have turned off the main generators if radiation exceeding
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
209
Rawson and Le Baron (1906) investigatedthe effect of electricalstimulation on the growth of plants-by means of a zinc plate at one end and
a copper plate at the other end-in experimental areas in glasshouses
containing loam mixed with manure. The two plates (30-130 m apart)
were joined by a copper wire and the whole formed an electrochemical
cell with a potential of about 0.5 V and a currentof 0.4-15 mA. Earlier
maturity(one week)and largesize of lettuceswerereportedin comparison
to neighboring, untreated plants. Similar experiments with cucumbers
needed the electrode plate size reducedto avoid rankgrowth of the crop
foliage. Singh (1932) passed weak (unspecified)currentsthrough soil in
which seedlings of gram (Cicer arietinum) were grown. The root growth
in the electrified pot was smaller than in the control pot (no electric
current)but shoots were more vigorous. The electrifiedroots produced
tertiaryrootlets while the others did not.
Lutkova (1965) evaluated the effect of electric currentsof 6-100 mA
(2 x 10-10 to 8 x 10-6 A cm-2) through soil in both field and culture
experiments. Low currentsthroughoutthe growth period increased the
yield of potatoes by 15-30% with starch content of the tubers up by
1-2%. Tomato yield was enhanced by 20-35% and sugarbeet crops in-
210
Table VIII
Change in bacterial densities in various media as a result of electrical stimulations
(from Stone, 1909)
Current
strength
(mA)
Medium
Sewage contaminated
pond water
0.1
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
Treatment
time
Electrified
1 day
2 days
3460
3440
1 day
16 days
11,000
243,000
32,000
7,650,000
1 day
9 days
6000
50,000
15,000
5,210,000
143,000
1,470,000
143,000
86,590,000
44,000
109,000
radicicola
Milk
Soil (sandy loam)
0.3
0
27 hours
0.1-0.6
1 day
17 days
33,470,000
28,780,000
37,930,000
32,860,000
30 days
19,290,000
35,000,000
var. atropurpurea,Biophytumsensitivum,Mimosa spegazini and M. pudica. Reactions varied depending upon the polarity of the stimulus and
the strength of the current but stimulation was usually stronger at the
211
212
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
polarity caused tissue damage and broke circuit continuity whereasnegative polarity caused foaming aroundthe entranceand exit points of the
electrode in the stem and maintained the currentflow.
V.B WEED CONTROL BY HIGH VOLTAGES
213
their edges facing, separated by 50-100 mm and with the notches opposite
each other.
The Lasco Corporation of America (Howe, 1977) has completed extensive field trials on post-emergence weed control by electric currents
and now produces equipment. An electric generator is carried at the rear
of a tractor with a transformer to provide 12-20 kV and control and safety
switching. The high voltage is supplied to an electrode, held above the
crop or to one side of it, which contacts the weeds. Destruction is by the
large electric currents forced through the plants by the high voltage, causing rapid heating and bursting of the cells. By use of systems with powers
ranging from 15-200 kW and a variety of electrode shapes and sizes,
successful results are claimed on broad-leaved weeds, grasses, shrubs and
small trees which are comparable to chemical methods in cost and effectiveness and have fewer adverse environmental effects (Bramblett, 1977).
Because of its manner of application, the electrical method is not selective
between weeds and crops unless there is a significant difference in conductivities with the desired plants having the highest resistance.
Dykes (1977) reports on clearing three weed species-cocklebur (Xanthium sp.), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and sesbania (Sesbania exaltata)-up to 2.5 m high-from around second year sycamore seedlings
0.6-2 m high. Current limited to 5 A was used at a speed of 4-5 km h'-i
with the electrode 1.3 m above ground level. An estimated 90-95% of
the broad-leaved weeds were dead five days later, with only slight damage
to the sycamore. After 60 days the tree seedlings showed no evidence of
being treated. Preliminary work (Chandler, 1978; Dykes, 1978) was also
reported on treating young cotton plants (four weeks old) when surrounded
by weeds. Initial results on crop and weed species indicate the need for
careful timing of the operation and adjustment of the voltage, but the
Lasco Corporation is continuing the research (1981, D. Johnson, pers.
comm.).
Dexter and Feight (1979) state that the method is limited to the control
of annual weeds only since the underground root systems of perennial
weeds are able to withstand the treatment and regenerate growth.
Wilson and Anderson (1981) evaluated the effectiveness of the Lasco
electric discharge system (EDS) on three weed species-kochia (Kochia
scoparia), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album)-growing in crops of sugar beet (Beta
vulgaris). The control of all weeds was 32%, 39% and 47% during 1977,
1978 and 1979 respectively, with the increase attributed to improving
equipment. No lasting damage was done to the crop, although some
individual leaves that had been inadvertently touched by the electrode
died but the beet itself was not harmed. In 1979, the sugar beet yields of
the EDS weeded plots compared to the handweeded ones were 76% (ko-
214
Table IX
A comparison of costs of three different types of weed control for three different
Type of weeder
100
Electric
Roller
Re-circulator
1.000
0.560
0.374
500
Electric
0.280
1100
Roller
0.393
Re-circulator
0.243
Electric
Roller
Re-circulator
0.224
0.234
0.374
215
was 1.34 A and treatment time only 13.2 seconds. The larger the plant
the higher the power needed to kill it. It was also found that to kill plants
in the field, two or three times as much power as for their glasshouse bred
contemporaries are needed, but not the ten times reported by Chandler
(1978).
Diprose and Benson (1980) and Diprose et al. (1 980a, 1980b) describe
trials with an electrothermal weed control device to control bolting and
weed beet in crops of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). A 52 kW tractor drove
a 24 kW 240 V rms generator which fed a transformer giving 8.4 kV rms
output. The electrode consisted of three metal rods 3 m wide, to span six
crop rows, placed one behind another to form a grid 1 m long, and it was
suspended hydraulically 8-15 cm above the crop. The whole machine
could move at 1.6 km h-I giving a plant/electrode contact time of 2 or
3 seconds. An interval of four weeks was left between the two treatments
of the trial plots and results were noted five weeks later. Of the 186 annual
beet counted in the trial plot, 51 had grown after the treatment but did
not produce viable seed. Of the remainder, in 101 the stems and leaves
were killed and no seed was produced. The 25% of treated plants that
had survived were those which grew along the top of or beneath the crop
rather than above it and so were missed by the electrode. A new machine
was constructed in 1981 using a 100 h.p. tractor providing an electrical
output of 54 kW at 9, 13 or 17 kV. It could travel at speeds in excess of
5 km h-1, spanned 12 rows of sugar beet crop, achieved a working rate
of 2.4 ha h-I and used between 3 1 ha-l and 6 1 ha-1 of diesel fuel in
medium infestations of weed beet (Diprose and Benson, 1982).
V.C
CONCLUSIONS
V.C(i) Summary
Small electric currents of 0.1 to 100 mA have been passed through soils
(Lazarenko et al., 1968; Lutkova, 1965; Rawson and Le Baron, 1906)
with reported beneficial effects to plants and bacteria. Heavy current of 40
A through soil was toxic to bacteria (Lazarenko et al., 1968). Stone (1909)
passed small electric currents (0.1-0.6 mA) through media containing
bacteria and stimulated their growth.
Small currents (10--_10-2
A) passed through plants and leaves (Black
et al., 1971; Cholodny and Sankewitsch, 1937; Dixon and Bennett-Clark,
1927; Stem, 1923) produce a variety of responses and can affect the
electrical resistivity of plant tissue, growth rates, and movement of metabolites. Heavier currents [i.e. 50 mA and above (Diprose et al., 1978c,
1980b; Howe, 1977)] cause the destruction of plant tissue by the rapid
heating of cellular water, leading to cell membrane rupture.
Weed killing machines with various types of electrodes have been con-
216
structed. Some use very high voltage discharges (e.g. 50 kV) (Bayev and
Savchuk, 1974, 1976; Slesarev, 1973; Slesarev et al., 1972; Svitalka, 1976)
and some use high voltage electrodes (8-20 kV) which have to touch the
plant being treated (Diprose and Benson, 1980; Dykes, 1977; Kaufman
and Schaffher, 1982; Wilson and Anderson, 1981). Machines of the first
type are complicated and can deal with small plants only (a few centimeters
tall) but the direct contact machines are more powerful and can handle
large weeds and heavy infestations.
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
217
218
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
Borthwick, H. A. 1965. What light can do to plants. Pages 67-70 in Proc. Conf. "E.M.
Radiation in Agriculture." Illuminating Engineering Society and the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, Oct. 1965. Roanoke, Virginia, U.S.A.
Bosisio, R. G. and N. Barthakur. 1969. Microwave protection of plants from cold. Journal
of Microwave Power 4(3): 190-193.
and J. Spooner. 1970. Microwave protection of a field crop against cold.
9
Journal of Microwave Power 5(1): 47-52.
Boulanger,R. J., W. M. Boerner and M. A. K. Hamid. 1969. Comparison of microwave
and dielectric heating systems for the control of moisture content and insect infestations
of grain. Journal of Microwave Power 4(3): 194-208.
Bramblett, J. 1977. New device zaps weeds. Progressive Farmer April: 70.
Briggs,L. J., A. B. Campbell,R. H. Heald andL. H. Flint. 1926. Electroculture. U.S.D.A.
Dept. Bull. 1379.
Chalmers, J. A. 1967. Atmospheric electricity. 2nd Edition. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford.
Champ, M. A., F. S. Davis and J. R. Wayland. 1972. Ultra high frequency electromagnetic
radiation utilised for aquatic vegetation control. Pages 418-420 in Proc. 26th Annual
Conference of South Eastern Association Game and Fish Commissioners. U.S.A.
Chandler, J. M. 1978. Crop and weed response to an electrical discharge. (Abs.) Proc.
Southern Weed Science Society 31: 63.
Cholodny, N. G. and E. Ch. Sankewitsch. 1937. Influence of weak electric currents upon
the growth of the coleoptile. PI. Physiol. (Lancaster) 12: 285-408.
Cihlar, J. and F. T. Ulaby. 1974. Dielectric properties of soils as a function of moisture
content. CRES Technical Report 177-47. November, 61 pp. The University of Kansas
Space Technology Center, Raymond Nicholas Hall, Center for Research Inc., 2291
Irving Hill Drive, Campus West, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A.
Collins, G. N., L. H. Flint and J. W. McLane. 1929. Electrical stimulation of plant growth.
J. Agric. Res. 38(11): 585-600.
Cope, F. W. 1976. Superconductivity-A possible mechanism for non-thermal biological
effects of microwaves. Journal of Microwave Power 11(3): 267-270.
Crawford, A. E. 1977. Phytotoxicity threshold levels of microwave radiation for Trifolium
and Medicago seeds. Seed Science and Technology 5: 671-676.
Crofts, A. S. 1975. Modern weed control. University of California Press, Los Angeles.
Davis, F. S. 1974. New techniques in weed control via microwaves. July 17th. Paper
presented to Southern Nurserymen's Association, Nacogdoches, Texas, U.S.A.
, J. R. Wayland and M. G. Merkle. 1971. Ultra high frequency electromagnetic
fields for weed control: Phytotoxicity and selectivity. Science 173: 535-537.
. 1973. Phytotoxicity of a U.H.F. electromagnetic field. Nature
and
9
241: 291-292.
Dexter, A. and J. J. Feight. 1979. Zap weeds with Lightning Weeder. Weeds Today 10(3):
9-10.
Diprose, M. F. and F. A. Benson. 1980. Weed control by electric discharges and microwaves-Final report. A report prepared for the Agricultural Research Council, U.K. by
the authors from The Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, The University of Sheffield, U.K.
and
. 1982. Final report on electrothermal weed beet control. A report
prepared for the Perry Foundation by the authors from The Department of Electronic
and Electrical Engineering, The University of Sheffield, U.K.
and R. Hackam. 1980a. Electrothermal control of weed beet and bolting
9
sugar beet. Weed Res. 20: 311-322.
and N. V. Turner. 1980b. The use of high voltage electricity for weed beet
9
control. Pages 545-548 in Proc. 1980 British Crop Protection Conference-Weeds.
November. Brighton, U.K.
, R. Hackam and F. A. Benson. 1978a. Selective destruction of wild oats when
mixed with cereal seeds by microwave irradiation. Pages 70-72 in Proc. Microwave
Power Symposium. June 28-30. Ottawa, Canada.
and
,
. 1978b. Weed control by high voltage electric shocks. Pages
MICROWAVE
RADIATION
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,
219
220
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,MICROWAVERADIATION
221
June 8: 305-306.
Rice, R. P. and A. R. Putnam. 1977. Some factors which influence the toxicity of U.H.F.
THE BOTANICALREVIEW
222
RADIATION
MICROWAVE
ELECTROSTATIC
FIELDS,
223