| Literature DB >> 35865269 |
Juan Luis Aguirre1,2, Juan Baena1,2, María Teresa Martín1,2, Sergio González1,2, José Luis Manjón3, Manuel Peinado2,4.
Abstract
In Europe, and many parts of the world, the number and variety of animal species on farmland is in marked decline. There is a need to search for alternatives that are safe for the environmental and are effective in controlling weeds. Wood vinegar from biomass pyrolysis may be an alternative for herb control. In this study, Wood vinegar (WV) pH, moisture content, and composition were analyzed, with subsequent assessment of the effects of WV on nitrophilous plant communities under natural conditions. The following three treatments were used: WV dissolved in water to form 25 vol% and 50 vol% dilutions and undiluted WV (100 vol%). The results showed a greater than 70% decrease in biomass at 7 days after WV application in all treatments. At the end of the sampling period (day 42), the plots treated with WV had four-times less biomass than the controls. No significant differences were observed among different treatments, thus indicating that a 25% dilution may suffice for use as an herbicide. However, this concentration also produced the highest variability in results. The area cleared by the affected species was colonized by perennial species. At the end of the sampling, 80% of the area of the treated plots was occupied by perennial species, whereas this percentage was 30% in control plots. Electron micrographs showed that the epidermis of the treated plants was severely affected within a few hours of the treatment, particularly of the stomatal cells. The most affected species were those with smooth leaves without protective structures and those with lighter stems and leaves. The good herbicidal performance of WV notwithstanding, regulations must be clarified for its use as an herbicide.Entities:
Keywords: biomass pyrolysis; glyphosate; herbicide; nitrophilous vegetation; weed control; wood vinegar
Year: 2020 PMID: 35865269 PMCID: PMC9285909 DOI: 10.1002/fes3.253
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Energy Secur ISSN: 2048-3694 Impact factor: 4.667
Wood vinegar composition determined by GC/MS
| Compound | Tr (min) | Formula | Area | %area (%wt) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acids | ||||
| Acetic acid | 6.96 | C2H4O2 | 27,822,047.9 | 18.91 (4.34) |
| Propanoic acid | 8.64 | C3H6O2 | 3,376,220.2 | 2.30 |
| Butanoic acid | 9.80 | C4H8O2 | 568,824.7 | 0.39 |
| Acetic acid, (acetyloxy)‐ | 9.28 | C4H6O4 | 1,740,139.1 | 1.18 |
| Esters | ||||
| Ethyl Acetate | 5.46 | C4H8O2 | 633,817.1 | 0.43 |
| 2‐Propanone, 1‐(acetyloxy)‐ | 10.60 | C5H8O3 | 1,621,314.6 | 1.10 |
| 2‐Butanone, 1‐(acetyloxy)‐ | 11.56 | C6H10O3 | 582,796.5 | 0.40 |
| Butyrolactone | 11.67 | C4H6O2 | 1,523,954.7 | 1.04 |
| 9‐Tetradecen‐1‐ol, acetate, (E)‐ | 12.49 | C16H30O2 | 588,287.5 | 0.40 |
| 2‐Hydroxy‐gamma‐butyrolactone | 12.72 | C4H6O3 | 1,224,031.2 | 0.83 |
| Aldehydes | ||||
| Acetaldehyde, hydroxy‐ | 5.92 | C2H4O2 | 4,832,663.8 | 3.29 (2.75) |
| Succindialdehyde | 9.76 | C4H6O2 | 342,429.4 | 0.23 |
| Ketones | ||||
| Acetona | 3.09 | C3H6O | 1,712,183.5 | 1.16 |
| 2‐Propanone, 1‐hydroxy‐ | 7.73 | C3H6O2 | 20,346,086.4 | 13.83 (2.21) |
| Acetoin | 8.49 | C4H8O2 | 691,341.2 | 0.47 |
| 1‐Hydroxy‐2‐butanone | 9.38 | C4H8O2 | 3,100,889.4 | 2.11 |
| 2‐Cyclopenten‐1‐one | 10.28 | C5H6O | 1,739,728.7 | 1.18 |
| 5,9‐Dodecadien‐2‐one, 6,10‐dimethyl‐, (E,E))‐ | 10.69 | C14H24O | 475,430.8 | 0.32 |
| 2‐Cyclopenten‐1‐one, 2‐methyl‐ | 11.00 | C6H8O | 1,000,657.6 | 0.68 |
| 2‐Cyclopenten‐1‐one, 2‐hydroxy‐ | 11.36 | C5H6O2 | 1,059,437.0 | 0.72 |
| Alcohols | ||||
| 1,2‐Ethanediol | 8.88 | C2H6O2 | 1,926,727.7 | 1.31 |
| 1,3‐Propanediol | 9.14 | C3H8O2 | 402,176.7 | 0.27 |
| 1,2,3‐Cyclopentanetriol | 11.21 | C5H10O3 | 506,637.5 | 0.34 |
| 2‐Cyclohexen‐1‐ol | 11.47 | C6H10O | 590,309.5 | 0.40 |
| Cyclopentanol | 13.49 | C5H10O | 2,027,616.8 | 1.38 |
| Phenols | ||||
| Phenol | 12.28 | C6H6O | 5,662,039.6 | 3.85 |
| Phenol, 2,5‐dimethyl‐ | 13.53 | C8H10O | 1,341,965.7 | 0.91 |
| Catechol | 14.71 | C6H6O2 | 4,764,242.4 | 3.24 |
| Carbohydrates | ||||
| D‐Mannose | 17.29 | C6H12O6 | 3,335,344.9 | 2.27 |
| D‐Allose | 18.21 | C6H12O6 | 3,834,671.9 | 2.61 |
| Levoglucosan | 19.39 | C6H10O5 | 12,204,882.9 | 8.30 (1.09) |
| Furans | ||||
| 2‐Furanol, tetrahydro‐ | 9.64 | C4H8O2 | 443,860.9 | 0.30 |
| 2‐Furanmethanol, tetrahydro‐ | 10.03 | C5H10O2 | 367,763.9 | 0.25 |
| Furfural | 10.21 | C5H4O2 | 3,151,605.4 | 2.14 (0.38) |
| 2‐Furanmethanol | 10.54 | C5H6O2 | 1,153,934.0 | 0.78 |
| 3‐(3 | 11.71 | C4H4O2 | 2,599,322.7 | 1.77 |
| Furan, 2,5‐dihydro‐2,5‐dimethyl‐ | 11.89 | C6H10O | 1,396,881.4 | 0.95 |
| 4‐Methyl‐5 | 12.24 | C5H6O2 | 342,815.3 | 0.23 |
| Nitrogenous | ||||
| Acetic acid, hydrazide | 3.42 | C2H6N2O | 825,170.7 | 0.56 |
| Hydrazine, methyl‐ | 6.81 | CH6N2 | 411,547.7 | 0.28 |
| Ethanone, 1‐(1 | 11.08 | C5H6N2O | 312,413.7 | 0.21 |
Coverage and biomass average in each treatment (Average and standard deviation)
| Treatment |
Group High (100 vol%) | Group Medium (50 vol%) |
Group Low (25 vol.%) | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cover (cm2) | 15,870 ± 2,636 | 15,030 ± 4,752 | 17,210 ± 2083 | 13,875 ± 530 |
| Biomass (cm3) | 200,100 ± 86,816 | 263,580 ± 149,099 | 302,625 ± 100,666 | 152,250 ± 13,788 |
There were no significant differences between the groups (ANOVA, F = 1.76, p = .22 and F = 1.36, p = .31).
Percentage of biomass reduction from day 0, at each sampling interval. Fisher LSD p < .001, indicating significant differences between groups H, M, and L and the control group, but not between groups (p > .05)
| Interval |
High (100 vol%) |
Medium (50 vol%) |
Low (25 vol%) | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| From 0 to 7 days | −84.56% ± 10.29 | −81.04% ± 6.51 | −78.27% ± 5.39 | −1.11% ± 1.57 |
| From 0 to 14 days | −71.45% ± 16.41 | −68.78% ± 7.59 | −56.09% ± 19.41 | +95.33% ± 5.30 |
| From 0 to 28 days | −54.02% ± 25.93 | −53.68% ± 25.57 | −36.42% ± 16.93 | +190.10% ± 107.78 |
| From 0 to 42 days | −53.35% ± 17.48 | −54.37% ± 15.04 | −15.94% ± 61.32 | +283.92% ± 7.03 |
Figure 1Biomass evolution over time after treatment with different doses of wood vinegar dilutions. There are significant differences between control and treatments at all intervals. No significant differences were observed between treatments
Figure 2Two different plots with 100 vol% WV treatment, at day 0 (left) and at day 7 (right)
Percentage of biomass increase between intervals
| Treatment | From day 7 to 14 | From day 14 to 28 | From day 28 to 42 |
|---|---|---|---|
| High (100 vol%) | 95.08% ± 26.94 | 63.61% ± 15.04 | 9.62% ± 25.07 |
| Medium (50 vol%) | 74.26% ± 49.92 | 42.56% ± 48.12 | 6.41% ± 22.99 |
| Low (25 vol%) | 112.25% ± 104.86 | 56.68% ± 51.96 | 24.64% ± 69.91 |
| Control | 97.59% ± 8.50 | 49.33% ± 59.23 | 42.63% ± 55.42 |
Percentage of plant cover reduction from day 0 at each sampling interval
| Interval | High | Medium | Low | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| From 0 to 7 days | −78.84% ± 11.21 | −78.69% ± 6.37 | −73.25% ± 8.62 | −1.10% ± 1.6 |
| From 0 to 14 days | −58.71% ± 17.44 | −64.57% ± 7.32 | −44.26% ± 23.03 | +4.33% ± 0.17 |
| From 0 to 28 days | −26.39% ± 34.30 | −44.73% ± 27.86 | −15.42% ± 17.81 | +11.43% ± 4.26 |
| From 0 to 42 days | −24.63% ± 18.55 | −47.64% ± 16.97 | −0.44% ± 49.89 | +5.70% ± 15.51 |
Figure 3Plant cover evolution over time after treatment with different doses of wood vinegar dilutions. Significant differences were observed between control and treatments at days 7 and 14, but not at days 28 and 42
Percentage of plant cover increase between different intervals
| Treatment | From 7 to 14 days | From 14 to 28 days | From 28 to 42 days |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | 102.37% ± 23.41 | 82.28% ± 40.70 | 9.70% ± 25.15 |
| Medium | 74.26% ± 49.92 | 50.97% ± 47.54 | 2.49% ± 24.58 |
| Low | 124.75% ± 113.49 | 63.07% ± 41.18 | 14.32% ± 38.41 |
| Control | −3.24% ± 1.37 | −7.43% ± 4.29 | 19.91% ± 23.27 |
Pearson correlation between WV volume used per unit of biomass and biomass reduction by interval
| % reduction 7 | % reduction 14 | % reduction 28 | % reduction 42 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Volume/Biomass (mm3/cm3) |
R = 0.11
|
R = 0.32
|
R = 0.25
|
R = 0.27
|
Percentage of coverage reduction from day 0, for treatments and control
| Species | Initial coverage (cm2) | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 28 | Day 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3,750 ± 1,318.57 | −57% | −56.33% | −76.66% | −91% |
| Control | 150 ± 35.36 | 0% | +3.33% | +3.33% | −100% |
|
| 1,087.5 ± 527.91 | −88.50% | −77.01% | −86.20% | −100% |
| Control | 150 ± 35.36 | 0% | +3.33% | +3.33% | −100% |
|
| 212.5 ± 259.48 | +305.88% | +1,029.41% | +2,105.88% | +2,752.94% |
| Control | 750 ± 50.71 | +5.20% | +8.34% | +10.01% | +403.33% |
Significant differences between the treatment and the control were found in all intervals (except for day 42) and in all species. No significant differences were found between WV treatments (ANOVA p > .05). (Although the results were analyzed for each treatment, the results of the WV treatments have been combined in the tables for further clarity.)
Figure 4Bromus matritensis epidermis. Control with turgid cells and trichomes (left). Collapsed cells 24 hr after treatment (right)
Figure 5Hordeum leporinum epidermis. Control with turgid cells and trichomes (left). Collapsed cells and trichomes 24 hr after treatment (right)
Percentage of coverage reduction from day 0, for treatments and control
| Species | Initial coverage (cm2) | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 28 | Day 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1637.51 ± 672.22 | −98.47% | −98.55% | −100% | −100% |
| Control | 1,500 ± 553.55 | +25.01% | +125.23% | +126% | +150% |
|
| 712.5 ± 617.22 | −100% | −87.71% | −49.12% | −46.67% |
| Control | 600 ± 70.71 | +6.25% | +20.83% | +23.75% | +25% |
|
| 837.5 ± 947.5 | −100% | −100% | −100% | −100% |
| Control | 3,000 ± 707.11 | 0% | +1.66% | +87.91% | +100% |
Significant differences were found between the treatments and the control in all intervals and in all species. There were no significant differences between WV treatments (ANOVA p > .05).
Figure 7Carduus pycnocephalus (left) and Hordeum leporinum (right) at 24 hr; control (C), and treatment (T)
Figure 6Carduus pycnocephalus epidermis. Control with open stomata and turgid cells (left). Closed stomata and large surface wrinkles on cells 24 hr after treatment (right)
Percentage of coverage reduction from day 0, for treatments and control
| Species | Initial coverage (cm2) | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 28 | Day 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1,225 ± ± 1,444.19 | −84.69% | −63.26% | −50% | −51.02% |
| Control | 750 ± 70.72 | +5.02% | +9.00% | +8.33% | +109.01% |
|
| 2,150 ± 827.3 | −100% | −97.67% | −94.76% | −100% |
| Control | 750 ± 35.36 | +2.01% | +5.01% | −100% | −100% |
Significant differences between treatments and control were found for all intervals in E. cicutarium and at 7 and 14 days for G. molle (ANOVA p < .01). No significant differences were found between WV treatments (ANOVA p > .05).
Percentage of coverage reduction from day 0, for treatments and control
| Species | Initial coverage (cm2) | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 28 | Day 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1,262.5 ± 8,549.63 | −87.12% | −74.25% | −26.73% | −88.11% |
| Control | 2,250 ± 70.71 | +11.66% | +14.44% | +62.78% | +50% |
Significant differences were found between the treatment groups and the control for all intervals (ANOVA p < .01). No significant differences were found between treatments (ANOVA p > .05).
Percentage of coverage reduction from day 0, for treatments and control
| Species | Initial coverage (cm2) | Day 7 | Day 14 | Day 28 | Day 42 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1512.5 ± 1,216.02 | −85.12% | −39.66% | +28.09% | +46.28% |
| Control | 150 ± 72.20 | +25% | +441.66% | +466.6% | +380% |
Significant differences between treatments and control were found for all intervals (ANOVA p < .01). No significant differences were found between treatments (ANOVA p > .05).
Occupation percentage of each type of plant in plots treated with wood vinegar (WV) and control plots
| Treatment | Initial (cm2) | Day 7 (cm2) | Day 14 (cm2) | Day 28 (cm2) | Day 42 (cm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perennial (WV) | 1725 ± 1,125 | 1,212 ± 837 | 3,325 ± 1702 | 6,637 ± 3,346 | 8,912 ± 2,594 |
| Control | 900 ± 141 | 975 ± 106 | 1622 ± 74 | 1,037 ± 53 | 3,775 ± 35 |
| Annual (WV) | 11,362 ± 2,739 | 2075 ± 1,230 | 2,537 ± 1728 | 2,200 ± 1,429 | 1,187 ± 925 |
| Control | 10,125 ± 1,202 | 10,597 ± 639 | 12,082 ± 717 | 7,607 ± 562 | 7,567 ± 1,071 |
| Biennial (WV) | 750 ± 575 | 25 ± 81 | 100 ± 184 | 425 ± 418 | 362 ± 608 |
| Control | 600 ± 70 | 637 ± 53 | 725 ± 35 | 742 ± 24 | 750 ± 28 |
Figure 8Plots after 42 days, with 100% (above left) and 50% WV (above right). Perennial dominance of Cynodon dactylon and Medicago sativa. Plot of control with dominance of annuals (Carduus pycnocephalus and Sisymbrium irio; below)
Figure 9Occupation percentage of each type of plant in plots treated with wood vinegar and control plots
Figure 10WV composition by compound family
Figure 11Chromatogram of WV