Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T16:03:04.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Nozzle Type and Pressure on the Efficacy of Spray Applications of the Bioherbicidal Fungus Microsphaeropsis amaranthi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David A. Doll ,
Paul E. Sojka  and
Steven G. Hallett
David A. Doll
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Paul E. Sojka
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Steven G. Hallett*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany & Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of application technology on efficacy has been thoroughly investigated for sprays of chemical pesticide but not biological pesticides. This study investigates the effect of applying conidia of Microsphaeropsis amaranthi, a candidate bioherbicide for Amaranthus spp., with a range of different hydraulic nozzle tips. The nozzle tips were selected to deliver sprays with different spectra of droplet sizes deployed at different angles. We found that sprays of large droplets gave poor coverage of the target and resulted in low levels of disease severity on common waterhemp. The most effective nozzle tip tested was a hollow cone nozzle tip, such as is commonly used for the application of fungicides. This nozzle tip deployed large numbers of fine droplets that swirled within the plant canopy, provided good coverage of all plant parts, and resulted in the highest levels of disease severity, particularly on stems.

Keywords

Common waterhempAmaranthus rudis Sauer# AMATABioherbicideapplication technologybiological controlAI, air induction spray tip TeeJet® AI 11004flat fan, standard flat spray tip TeeJet® TP 110015full cone, full cone spray tip TeeJet® TG-4hollow cone, hollow cone spray tip TeeJet® TX-8 ConejetXR, extended range flat spray tip TeeJet® XR 11001VMD, volume mean diameter: 50% of the spray volume composed of droplets larger, and 50% of the spray volume composed of droplets smaller, than the VMD
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 918 - 923
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Amsellem, Z., Sharon, A., Gressel, J., and Quimby, P. C. 1990. Complete abolition of high inoculum threshold of two mycoherbicides (Alternaria cassiae and Alternaria crassa) when applied in inverse emulsion. Phytopathol 80:925–929.Google Scholar
Arnold, A. C. 1983. Comparative droplet spectra for three different-angled flat fan nozzles. Crop Prot. 2:193–204.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. 1999. Delivery systems and protocols for biopesticides. in Hall, F. R. and Menn, J. J., eds. Biopesticides: Use and Delivery. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. Pp. 509–528.Google Scholar
Bateman, R. P. and Chapple, A. C. 2000. The spray application of mycopesticide formulations. in Butt, T., Jackson, C., and Hagan, N., eds. Fungi as Biocontrol Agents: Progress, Problems and Potential. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Pp. 289–310.Google Scholar
Chapple, A. C. and Bateman, R. P. 1997. Application systems for microbial pesticides: necessity not novelty. Br. Crop Prot. Council Monograph 89:181–190.Google Scholar
Chapple, A. C., Downer, R. A., Wolf, T. M., Taylor, R. A. J., and Hall, F. R. 1996. The application of biological pesticides: limitations and a practical solution. Entomophaga 41:465–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combellack, J. H. and Matthews, G. A. 1981. Droplet spectra measurements of fan and cone atomizers using a laser diffraction technique. J. Aerosol Sci. 12:529–540.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H., Hanks, J. E., and Boyette, C. D. 1993. Invert emulsion droplet size and mycoherbicidal activity of Colletotrichum truncatum . Weed Technol. 7:417–424.Google Scholar
Greaves, M. P., Holloway, P. J., and Auld, B. A. 1998. Formulation of microbial herbicides. in Burges, H. D., ed. Formulation of Microbial Pesticides. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Pp 203–233.Google Scholar
Hewitt, A. J. 1993. Droplet size spectra produced by air-assisted atomizers. J. Aerosol Sci. 24:155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 13:163–178.Google Scholar
Lawrie, J., Greaves, M. P., Down, V. M., Western, N. M., and Jaques, S. J. 2002. Investigation of spray application of microbial herbicides using Alternaria alternata on Amaranthus retroflexus . Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 12:469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. A. 2000. Pesticide Application Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swithenbank, J., Beer, J. M., Taylor, D. S., Abbot, D., and McReath, G. C. 1977. Laser diagnostic technique for the measurement of droplet and particle size distribution. Progr. Astronau. Aeronau. 53.Google Scholar