Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:44:05.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drift of Glyphosate Sprays Applied with Aerial and Ground Equipment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. E. Yates ,
N. B. Akesson  and
D. E. Bayer
W. E. Yates
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agric. Engr., Dep. of Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
N. B. Akesson
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agric. Engr., Dep. of Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
D. E. Bayer
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agric. Engr., Dep. of Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The potential losses from spray applications of glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] with and without the inclusion of a polymer thickening agent were evaluated in field tests, applied under identified weather conditions with a boom-nozzle ground sprayer, helicopter, and fixed-wing aircraft. The downwind transport and diffusion of the spray loss was assessed by means of Mylar fallout sheets, high volume air samplers, and 4-leaf wheat (Triticum aestivum L. ‘Anza’) plants. Lowest drift losses occurred, under 0.01 g/ha on fallout sheets at 100 m, with deflector fan nozzles (KGF) operating at a low pressure (7 kPa) on the ground sprayer. Drift losses from a helicopter equipped with micro-jet nozzles were only slightly higher, less than 0.03 g/ha on fallout sheets at 100 m. Drift losses from 8003 nozzles mounted on a ground sprayer and D-6 jet nozzles directed back on fixed wing aircraft produced much higher drift deposits, from 0.2 to 1.0 g/ha on fallout sheets at 100 m. The highest levels of drift losses were obtained with D-4 jet nozzles directed down on a helicopter, 5 g/ha on fallout sheets at 100 m. Some evidence of reduced airborne drift was apparent where the polymer thickening agent was used with aircraft and ground equipment. The test results indicate that significant reduction in drift losses were obtained with proper application equipment; however, the use of a polymer thickening agent reduced drift only slightly for certain applications.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 1978 , pp. 597 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the 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 Yates, W. E. 1976. Recent developments in the application of herbicides by aircraft. Weeds Today 7:6–8.Google Scholar
2. Betts, M. and Ashford, R. 1976. The effect of 2,4-D on rapeseed. Weed Sci. 24:356–360.Google Scholar
3. Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., and Goering, C. E. 1976. Spray drift and recovery as affected by spray thickener, nozzle type and nozzle pressure. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19:213–218.Google Scholar
4. Bode, L. E. and McWorter, C. G. 1977. Toxicity of MSMA, fluometuron and propanil to soybeans. Weed Sci. 25:101–105.Google Scholar
5. Bouse, L. F., Carlson, J. B., and Merkle, M. G. 1976. Spray recovery from nozzles designed to reduce drift. Weed Sci. 24:361–365.Google Scholar
6. Christensen, P., Yates, W. E., and Myrup, L. O. 1972. A micrometeorological data acquisition system. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 15:956–959.Google Scholar
7. Kasimatis, A. N., Weaver, R. J., and Pool, R. M. 1968. Effects of 2,4-D and 2,4-DB on the vegetative development of ‘Tokay’ grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 19:194–204.Google Scholar
8. Norris, W. A. (ed.). 1953. Crop dusting: legal problems in a new industry. Stanford Law Rev. 6:69–90.Google Scholar
9. Ware, G. W., Cahill, W. P., and Estesen, B. J. 1975. Pesticide drift: Aerial applications comparing conventional flooding vs. raindrop nozzles. J. Econ. Entomol. 68:320–330.Google Scholar
10. Wax, L. M., Kruth, L. A., and Slife, F. W. 1969. Response of soybeans to 2,4-D dicamba and picloram. Weed Sci. 16:388–393.Google Scholar
11. Yates, W. E., Akesson, N. B., and Bayer, D. 1976. Effects of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19:41–46.Google Scholar
12. Yates, W. E., Akesson, N. B., and Cowden, R. E. 1974. Criteria for minimizing drift residues on crops downwind from aerial applications. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 17:627–632.Google Scholar