Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:58:10.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postemergence Weed Control in Onions (Allium cepa) with Air-assisted, Flat Fan, and Rotary Nozzles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Bernard H. Zandstra  and
Thomas F. Wallace Jr.
Bernard H. Zandstra
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Thomas F. Wallace Jr.
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1984, 1985, and 1986 to compare standard flat fan nozzles, low-volume flat fan nozzles, rotary controlled droplet applicators, and air-assisted nozzles for postemergence weed control in onions with oxyfluorfen and fluazifop-P. Herbicides applied with flat fan nozzles at 47 or 190 L/ha controlled broadleaf and grass weeds as good or better than with the other nozzles. Oxyfluorfen applied with flat fan nozzles controlled common lambsquarters and ladysthumb best. None of the nozzles improved control of the difficult marsh yellowcress. Carrier volume had minimal effect on weed control. Nozzle and carrier volume did not affect onion yield.

Keywords

Fluazifop-P, (R)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]-oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidoxyfluorfen, 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl) benzenecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯3 CHEALladysthumb, Polygonum persicaria L. ♯ POLPEmarsh yellowcress, Rorippa islandica (Oeder)Borbas ♯ RORISonion, Allium cepa L.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 467 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Alcock, R., and Froehlich, D. 1986. Analysis of rotary atomizers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 29:1514–1519.Google Scholar
2. 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
3. Bode, L. E. 1988. Air-assist, air-foil, and air-curtain sprayers. Weed Technol. 2:88–93.Google Scholar
4. Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., Pearson, S. L., and Bouse, L. F. 1983. Characteristics of the Micromax rotary atomizer. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 26:999–1005.Google Scholar
5. 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
6. Derkson, R. C., and Bode, L. E. 1986. Droplet size comparisons from rotary atomizers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 29:1204–1207.Google Scholar
7. Gardisser, D., and Baldwin, F. 1987. Comparison of herbicide application equipment. Proc. 39th Ill. Agric. Pestic. Conf. Univ. Ill., Urbana, IL. p. 71–77.Google Scholar
8. Gebhardt, M. R., Welber, C. L. III, and Bouse, C. F. 1985. Comparison of a rotary atomizer to a fan nozzle for herbicide application. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28:382–385.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. McKinlay, K. S., Brandt, S. A., Morse, P., and Ashford, R. 1972. Droplet size and phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weed Sci. 20:450–452.Google Scholar
11. Wolff, R. L., and Watson, D. G. 1986. Development of an air-assisted row crop sprayer. Proc. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Agric. Machinery Conf., ASAE, St. Joseph, MI. Paper 861463.Google Scholar