Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T13:56:47.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nonvertical Spray Angles Optimize Graminicide Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter Kryger Jensen
Peter Kryger Jensen*
Affiliation:
University of Aarhus, The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Integrated Pest Management, Research Centre Flakkebjerg, DK-4200 Slagelse, Denmark
*
Author's E-mail: PeterK.Jensen@agrsci.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Annual grasses constitute a major weed problem in winter annual crops in Northern Europe and especially in cropping systems where ploughing is omitted. At the optimum growth stage for control with POST herbicides, grasses have a predominantly vertical leaf orientation. This represents a very difficult spray target using the standard technique where nozzles are mounted more or less vertically downward. In this study, efficacy of the foliar-acting herbicide, haloxyfop, on perennial ryegrass at the two- to three-leaf stage was investigated in field experiments using some alternative configurations of nozzle mounting on the sprayer. Angling the spray either forward or backward relative to the direction of travel increased herbicide efficacy using standard commercially available flat-fan and pre-orifice nozzles. Efficacy increased generally with increasing angling relative to vertically downward and the forward-angled spray improved efficacy most. The largest improvement in efficacy was obtained using a 60° forward-angled spray in combination with a reduced boom height. Using this configuration, herbicide dose could be reduced by approximately 30% without loss of efficacy in comparison with the standard vertical mounting of nozzles. There was no advantage of using combinations of forward- and backward-angled nozzles.

Keywords

Haloxyfopperennial ryegrass, Lolium perenne L. LOLPEAngled sprayannual grass controlflat-fan nozzlepre-orifice nozzleherbicide efficacy

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 1029 - 1034
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bellinder, R. R., Arsenovic, M., Shah, D. A., and Rauch, B. J. 2003. Effect of growth stage and adjuvant on the efficacy of fomesafen and bentazon. Weed Sci. 51:1016–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J., Moss, S., and Orson, J. 2000. The future for grass weed management in the UK. Pages 59–63. Pestic. Outlook April 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combellack, J. H. and Richardson, R. G. 1985. Effect of changing droplet trajectory on collection efficiency. Pages 227–233. in. BCPC Monograph 28, Application and Biology. Berkshire, U.K British Crop Protect. Council.Google Scholar
Dowley, L. J. and Neville, T. 2003. Agrochemical efficacy testing. Pages 18. Report no. OP/CPB/03/2003, Crop Protect. and Breeding Dept., Crops Res. Cen., Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. 1979. Bioassay and the practice of statistical inference. Int. Stat. Rev. 47:1–12.Google Scholar
Göhlich, H., Jegatheeswaran, P., and Heidt, H. 1976. Zur ablagerung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in Höheren Beständen. Landtechnik 4:148–150.Google Scholar
Gregoire, T., McMullen, M., and Lukach, J. 2002. Fungicide spraying techniques to manage fusarium head blight. Proc. the Manitoba-North Dakota zero tillage farmers assoc. 24th Ann. Workshop 2002. Available at http://www.mandakzerotill.org/books/proceedings/Proceedings%202002/Spraying%20Techniques%20to%20Control%20Fusarium.htm.Google Scholar
Holterman, H. J., van de Zande, J. C., Porskamp, H. A. J., and Hiujsmans, J. F. M. 1997. Modelling spray drift from boom sprayers. Comput. Electron. Agric. 19:1–22.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. 2006. Influence of volume rate on herbicide efficacy of flat fan, low drift and air induction nozzles under field conditions. Pages 439–444. in. Aspects of Applied Biology 77, International Advances in Pesticide Application. Cambridge, U.K Association for Applied Biology.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. and Christensen, S. 1993. Reflectance measurements as a tool for monitoring herbicide efficacy and herbicide tolerance. Pages 235–241. in. Quantitative Approaches in Weed and Herbicide Research and Their Practical Application. Braunschweig, Germany European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. and Spliid, N. H. 2003a. Deposition of spray liquid on the soil below sugar beet and potatoes after applications during the growing season. Acta Agric. Scand. B-S P 53:49–55.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. and Spliid, N. H. 2003b. Deposition of spray liquid on the soil below cereal crops after applications during the growing season. Weed Res. 43:362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. K. and Spliid, N. H. 2005. Loss of spray liquid to the soil below cereal crops as related to formulation, drop size, spray angling, travel speed and boom height. Ann. Rev. Agric. Eng. 4:323–331.Google Scholar
Kudsk, P. and Streibig, J. C. 1993. Formulations and adjuvants. Pages 99–116. in Streibig, J.C., Kudsk, P. eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Simard, M-J., Johnson, E., Stevenson, F. C., Beckie, H., and Blackshaw, R. E. 2006. Control of volunteer canola with herbicides: effects of plant growth stage and cold acclimation. Weed Technol. 20:485–493.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. H. 1999. Factors influencing the risk of drift into field boundaries. Pages 439–446. in. Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conference—Weeds. Brighton, U.K British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. H., Lane, A. G., and Wheeler, H. C. 2002. Optimising Fungicide Application According to Crop Canopy Characteristics in Wheat. Pages 32. HGCA Project Report no. 277.Google Scholar
Myers, M. W., Curran, W. S., Vangessel, M. J., Majek, B. A., Scott, B. A., Mortensen, D. A., Calvin, D. D., Karsten, H. D., and Roth, G. W. 2005. The effect of weed density and application timing on weed control and corn grain yield. Weed Technol. 19:102–107.Google Scholar
Nicholson, P., Turner, J. A., Jenkinson, P., Jennings, P., Stonehouse, J., Nuttall, M., Dring, D., Weston, G., and Thomsett, M. 2003. Maximising Control with Fungicides of Fusarium Ear Blight (Feb) in Order to Reduce Toxin Contamination of Wheat. Pages 84. HGCA Project Report no. 297.Google Scholar
Orson, J. H. 2006. Weed and pest management. Pages 46–53. in. Proceedings of NJF Seminar 378, Tillage Systems for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Environment. Odense, Denmark Nordic Association of Agricultural Science.Google Scholar
Powell, E. S., Orson, J. H., Parkin, C. S., Miller, P. C. H., Aldred, D., and Magan, N. 2004. Improving the deposition and coverage of fungicides on ears to control Fusarium ear blight and reduce mycotoxin contamination of grain. Pages 215–222. in. Aspects of Applied Biology 71, International Advances in Pesticide Application. London, U.K Association of Applied Biology.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. G. 1987. Effect of drop trajectory on spray deposits on crop and weeds. Plant Protect. Q. 2:108–111.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. H., Scott, T. A. J., and Marshall, D. J. 2000. The effect of nozzle angle and nozzle types on the deposition and biological performance of potato blight fungicides. Pages 267–272. in. Aspects of Applied Biology 57, Pesticide Application. Guildford, U.K Association of Applied Biology.Google Scholar
Rudemo, M., Ruppert, D., and Streibig, J. C. 1989. Random-effect models in nonlinear regression with application to bioassays. Biometrics 45:349–362.Google Scholar
Rydahl, P. 2004. A Danish decision support system for integrated management of weeds. Pages 43–53. in. Aspects of Applied Biology 72, Advances in Applied Biology: Providing New Opportunities for Consumers and Producers in the 21st Century. Oxford, U.K Association of Applied Biology.Google Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Shoup, D. E., and Al-Khatib, K. 2007. Response of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to glyphosate as affected by growth stage. Weed Sci. 55:147–151.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 29–55. in Streibig, J.C., Kudsk, P. eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Tu, Y. Q., Lin, Z. M., and Zhang, J. Y. 1986. The effect of leaf shape on the deposition of spray droplets in rice. Crop Prot. 5:3–7.Google Scholar
Wirth, W., Storp, S., and Jacobsen, W. 1991. Mechanisms controlling leaf retention of agricultural spray solutions. Pestic. Sci. 33:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, T., Kutcher, R., Gilbert, J., and Fernandez, M. 2002. Optimizing the application of foliar sprays for Fusarium head blight control in wheat. Pages 28. Progress Report, February 2002, Saskatchewan Agricultural Development Fund, ADF Project 200000047, Res. 64BX.Google Scholar
Xie, H. S., Caldwell, B. C., Hsiao, A. I., Quick, W. A., and Chao, J. F. 1995. Spray deposition of fenoxaprop and imazamethabenz on wild oat (Avena fatua) as influenced by environmental factors. Weed Sci. 43:179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, H., Reichard, D. L., Fox, R. D., Brazee, R. D., and Ozkan, H. E. 1994. Simulation of drift of discrete sizes of water droplets from field sprayers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37:1401–1407.Google Scholar