Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T17:16:36.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Spray Drift During Postemergence Herbicide Applications to Turfgrass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Harlene Hatterman-Valenti ,
Micheal D. K. Owen  and
Nick E. Christians
Harlene Hatterman-Valenti
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Dep. Agron. and Hortic. Dep., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Dep. Agron. and Hortic. Dep., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011
Nick E. Christians
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Dep. Agron. and Hortic. Dep., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field tests showed that the lawn spray-gun with a 4 gpm lawn tip reduced the percentage of application volume deposited 90 cm to 210 cm downwind from the spray swath edge when compared with XR8004 flat-fan or RA-6 wide angle hollow cone applications at wind speeds between 4.7 and 14.4 km/h. The percentage of applied volume collected at 210 cm downwind from the XR8004 flat-fan applications was 5 and 16 times greater than the percentage from the RA-6 Raindrop nozzle and lawn spray-gun applications, respectively. Visible injury alone with height increases and fresh weights from tomato plants located downwind from the applications concur with spray-drift data for all nozzle types. Triclopyr injury decreased as the distance from the swath edge increased. All tomato plants located downwind up to 210 cm from the XR8004 flat-fan applications were visibly injured (15 to 40%); whereas, only plants less than 150 cm downwind from the RA-6 Raindrop applications and less than 90 cm downwind from the lawn spray-gun applications were injured (2 to 8%).

Keywords

Triclopyr, [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acidtomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)Flat-fan nozzleslawn spray-gunnon-target injuryraindrop nozzlestriclopyr
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 321 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Ahmad, S., Khan, I. A., Siddiqui, B. A., and Zaidi, B. A. 1984. Nonlethal effects of 2,4-D on chrysanthemum. Acta Bot. Indica 12:86–88.Google Scholar
2. 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. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.) 19:213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bode, L. E. and Zain, S. B. 1987, Spray drift deposits from low volume application using oil and water carriers. p. 93–103 in Beestman, G. B. and Vander Hooven, D.I.B., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: 7th vol. ASTM STP 968, Am. Soc. Testing Mat. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
4. Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Merkle, M. G. 1976. Spray recovery from nozzles designed to reduce drift. Weed Sci. 24:361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bouse, L. F., Kirk, I. W., and Bode, L. E. 1990. Effect of spray mixture on droplet size. Trans. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.) 33:783–788.Google Scholar
6. Combellack, J. H. 1982. Loss of herbicides from ground sprayers. Weed Res. 22:193–204.Google Scholar
7. Guzman, V. L. 1956. Volatility and drift of 2,4-D as a cause of damage to untreated sensitive plants. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 16:283–293.Google Scholar
8. Hurto, K. A. 1988. Spectral analysis of spray droplets generated by the chemlawn spray gun used to apply pesticides to lawns. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:164–165.Google Scholar
9. Maybank, J., Yoshida, K., and Grover, R. 1978. Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. J. 28:1009–1014.Google Scholar
10. Miller, P.C.H., Mawer, C. J., and Merritt, C. R. 1989. Wind tunnel studies of the spray drift from two type of agricultural spray nozzle. Aspects Appl. Biol. 21:237–238.Google Scholar
11. Richardson, R. G. 1984. Fluorescent tracer technique for measuring total herbicide deposits on plants. Austral. Weeds 3:123–124.Google Scholar
12. Smith, D. B., Harris, F. D., and Goering, C. E. 1982. Variables affecting drift from ground boom sprayers. Trans. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.) 25:1499–1503.Google Scholar
13. Uk, S. 1977. Tracing insecticide spray droplets by sizes on natural surfaces. Pestic. Sci. 8:501–509.Google Scholar
14. Wedding, R. T., Kendrick, J. B., and Stewart, W. S. 1956. Growth regulators on beans; studies in southern California indicate properly applied sprays may increase yields of dry limas under some conditions. Calif. Agric. 10:4–12.Google Scholar
15. Wolf, R. E. 1993. Avoiding complaints about spray drift. Solutions 5:20–22.Google Scholar
16. Young, B. W. 1990. Droplet dynamics in hydraulic nozzle spray clouds. p. 142–155 in Bode, L. E., Hazen, J. L., and Chasin, D. G., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems: 10th vol. ASTM STP 1078, Am. Soc. Testing Mat., Philadelphia, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar