Paper · 2019 · Crop and Pasture Science

Potential of microwave soil heating for weed management and yield improvement in rice cropping

Muhammad Jamal Khan; Graham Brodie; Dorin Gupta

6
claims
13
verbatim quotes
10
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Herbicide-resistant weeds have prompted the development of non-chemical weed-control techniques for sustainable crop production. We examined the potential of pre-emergence microwave (MW) soil treatment to suppress weeds and enhance grain yield in rice (Oryza sativa L.) cropping in two agro-ecological zones of Australia. An experimental MW weed killer, which has four, independently controlled, 2-kW MW generators operating at 2.45 GHz, was used to treat the soil before cropping under field conditions. A once-off MW soil treatment (duration 60 s) and an untreated control were assigned in a randomised complete block design with five replicates at two study locations: Dookie (Victoria) and Jerilderie (New South Wales). Simpson’s numerical surface integral approximation estimated the applied energy density of ~500 J cm–2. This energy increased the soil’s temperature up to 70–75°C in top soil horizon (0–6 cm) as depicted by infrared thermal imaging. No statistically significant difference was detected for weed control between MW and untreated control plots at either study location. At Dookie, grain yield did not significantly increase in response to MW soil treatment, whereas at Jerilderie, grain yield was 20% higher (P < 0.05) with MW soil treatment than in control plots. At Jerilderie, the irrigation water use efficiency (t ML–1) was 21% higher in MW plots than control plots. In summary, MW exposure of 60 s appeared to be an insufficient heating duration for seedbank depletion. This suggests further treatment modification followed by rigorous testing under different soils conditions using the MW prototype.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Microwave treatment did not significantly improve weed control at either location.

Treatment
MWe0
Outcome
weed controle0
Qualifier
either study locatione0
Comparator
untreated control plotse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No statistically significant difference was detected for weed control between MW and untreated control plots at either study location”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1090 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice (Oryza sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–269 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice grain yield did not significantly increase after microwave treatment at Dookie.

Treatment
MW soil treatmente0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
did not significantly increasee0
Comparator
untreated controle2
Setting
Dookiee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At Dookie, grain yield did not significantly increase in response to MW soil treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1178 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice (Oryza sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–269 · show in text ↑
e2

“an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 554–574 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At Jerilderie, microwave treatment increased rice grain yield by 20% versus control plots.

Treatment
MW soil treatmente0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
20%e0
Comparator
control plotse0
Setting
Jerilderiee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“at Jerilderie, grain yield was 20% higher (P < 0.05) with MW soil treatment than in control plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1188–1285 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice (Oryza sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–269 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At Jerilderie, irrigation water use efficiency was 21% higher in microwave plots than controls.

Treatment
MW plotse0
Outcome
irrigation water use efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Value
21%e0
Comparator
control plotse0
Setting
Jerilderiee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At Jerilderie, the irrigation water use efficiency (t ML–1) was 21% higher in MW plots than control plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1392 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice (Oryza sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–269 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors judged 60 s of microwave exposure insufficient for seedbank depletion.

Treatment
MW exposure of 60 se0
Outcome
insufficient heating duration for seedbank depletione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“MW exposure of 60 s appeared to be an insufficient heating duration for seedbank depletion”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1496 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice (Oryza sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–269 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend modifying the microwave treatment and testing it across soil conditions.

Outcome
further treatment modification followed by rigorous testing under different soils conditionse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“further treatment modification followed by rigorous testing under different soils conditions using the MW prototype”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1512–1627 · show in text ↑
e1

“rice (Oryza sativa L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–269 · show in text ↑

processing · weed · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

processing · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

35 papers: 34 positive, 1 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

31 papers more in this group

See all 35 papers →

processing · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

114 papers: 88 positive, 26 negative or no effect

87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

110 papers more in this group

See all 114 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.