Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-24T04:48:35.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Technique for Studying the Relationship of Herbicide Spray Characteristics to Phytotoxicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. L. Anliker  and
M. J. Morgan
W. L. Anliker
Affiliation:
Agronomy Dept., State College of Washington, Pullman
M. J. Morgan
Affiliation:
Dept. of Agric. Engineering, State College of Washington, Pullman
Get access

Extract

The low-volume technique of spray application, which has gained such wide acceptance since the development of the phenoxy-type herbicides, has created problems which did not exist with the highvolume spraying techniques used with contact-type materials. Frequently, when spray applications of systemic herbicides are made, there is only a very narrow margin between the amount of chemical required to kill the weeds and the amount which injures the crop plants. There is evidence that the physical characteristics of both the spray and the plant surface influence some of the responses of plants to herbicides (1, 4, 6, 7). Smith (9) has shown that a surprisingly small percentage of the spray discharged from a nozzle is intercepted by plant surfaces and that the size of the spray particles affects total amount of material retained by the plant. Droplet size is also important since susceptible plants are often injured by small quantities of herbicide which can drift for miles. Moreover, there is evidence that certain plants respond differently to various sizes of spray droplets (3, 5).

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 1958 , pp. 447 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © 1958 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

1. Akesson, N. B., and Harvey, W. A. Equipment for the application of herbicides. Agr. Engr. 29:384–389. 1948.Google Scholar
2. Barger, E. T., Collins, E. V., Norton, R. A., and Liljedahl, J. B. Problems in the design of chemical weed control equipment over row crops. Agr. Engr. 29:381–383. 1948.Google Scholar
3. Behrens, Richard. Influence of various components on the effectiveness of 2,4,5–T sprays. Weeds 5:183–196. 1957.Google Scholar
4. Edwards, C. J., and Ripper, W. E. Droplet size, rates of application and the avoidance of spray drift. Proc. 1st British Weed Cont. Conf. pp. 348–367. 1953.Google Scholar
5. Fisher, C. E., and Young, Dale W. The effect of herbicide droplet size on the control of mesquite when applied by airplane equipment. Proc. North Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. 7:84–86. 1950.Google Scholar
6. Loomis, W. E. Basic research in weed control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. 6:101–103. 1949.Google Scholar
7. Lynch, P. B., Matthews, L. J., and Thompson, F. B. Measurements of distribution of weed-killing spray applied to gorse (Ulex europaeus) by helicopter and aeroplane. New Zealand Jour. Sci. Tech. A 37:505–522. 1956.Google Scholar
8. Shanks, G. T., and Patterson, J. J. Technique for spray nozzle testing. Agr. Eng. 29:539–540. 1948.Google Scholar
9. Smith, H. H. Quantitative aspects of aqueous-spray applications of 2,4–dichlorophenoxyacetic acid for herbicidal purposes. Botan. Gaz. 107:544–551. 1946.Google Scholar