Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T01:31:33.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Venturi-Type Nozzles and Application Volume on Postemergence Herbicide Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Etheridge ,
William E. Hart ,
Robert M. Hayes  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Robert E. Etheridge
Affiliation:
John Deere Company, Atlanta, GA
William E. Hart
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
*
Corresponding author' E-mail: tmueller@utk.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to compare venturi-type nozzles to a fan nozzle with respect to the efficacy of postemergence herbicides applied to common cocklebur and broadleaf signalgrass. Spray solutions of glufosinate, glyphosate, and paraquat were applied through all combinations of three nozzles and two application volumes. Venturi nozzles were a Delavan Raindrop Ultra (RU) and a Spraying Systems AI Teejet (AI). A Spraying Systems XR Teejet (XR) fan nozzle was included as a standard. Previous work indicated droplet size spectra differed among these nozzles. There was a difference in common cocklebur control among nozzles (AI = XR > RU), although control was at least 90% for all nozzles. Herbicide choice had a greater effect on broadleaf signalgrass control than nozzle type. Broadleaf signalgrass control differed among herbicides (glufosinate = paraquat > glyphosate) and among nozzles (AI = XR > RU). Herbicide performance varied between nozzles (AI > RU), but the AI nozzle was as effective as the XR fan nozzle.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosateparaquatbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash #3 BRAPPcommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium (L.) # XANSTDriftAI, Spraying Systems AI TeejetRU, Delavan Raindrop UltraVMD, volume median diameterWAT, weeks after treatmentXR, Spraying Systems XR Teejet
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 75 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30: 221–224.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 147–152, 226-228.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. New York: Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press. pp. 76–78, 1381-1391, 2291-2296.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Influence of glyphosate concentration on glyphosate absorption and translocation in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 36: 291–295.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31: 124–130.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1987. Effects of application variables on glyphosate phytoxicity. Weed Technol. 1: 14–17.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1990. Droplet makeup and the effect on phytotoxicity of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38: 406–410.Google Scholar
de Snoo, G. R. and Wit, P. J. 1998. Buffer zones for reducing pesticide drift to ditches and risks to aquatic organisms. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 41: 112–118.Google Scholar
Etheridge, R. E., Womac, A. R., and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns of four venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. Weed Technol. 13: 765–770.Google Scholar
Freemark, K. and Boutin, C. 1995. Impacts of agricultural herbicide use on terrestrial wildlife in temperate landscapes—a review with special reference to North America. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 52: 67–91.Google Scholar
Lake, J. R. 1977. The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic. Sci. 8: 515–520.Google Scholar
McKinlay, K. S., Ashford, R., and Ford, R. J. 1974. Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci. 22: 31–34.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Womac, A. R. 1997. Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 639–643.Google Scholar
Nordby, A. and Skuterud, R. 1975. The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res. 14: 385–395.Google Scholar
Spillman, J. J. 1984. Spray impaction, retention and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pestic. Sci. 15: 97–106.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. G., Bouse, L. F., Crane, R. A., and Bovey, R. W. 1993. Droplet size and spray volume effects on honey mesquite mortality with clopyralid. J. Range Manag. 46: 257–261.Google Scholar
Yates, E. W., Akesson, N. B., and Bayer, D. 1976. Effects of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19: 41–46.Google Scholar